Peanut Gallery: Dave Hawkins and Umop, David Rohl's New Chronology

[umop apisdn w,I]

Admin note: This is a peanut gallery for this (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=5204) Exclusive Engagement thread.

Oh - and (rather obviously) - Dave and I shouldn't post in this thread...

[Jet Black]

first post.

[Jet Black]

second post.

[SAWells]

Dave's answer to umop's first post: the chronology of Egypt is wrong because it makes the bible wrong. It can be fixed by making it fit the bible.

[Lucretius III]

Dave's answer to umop's first post: the chronology of Egypt is wrong because it makes the bible wrong. It can be fixed by making it fit the bible.
...and even if it still doesn't fit the Bible it is still better than the orthodox chronology with all it's consilient lines of evidence.... because Dave says so ! :)

[SAWells]

I have posted in General Discussion a thread, titled Suggestion: Auto-Dave, for a plan to get interesting arguments going in a way that doesn't depend on Dave, who now thinks the board needs him. Please could the gang give it a look and see what you think? Cheers!

[VoxRat]

Admin Note: This thread is for Dave and I me to discuss Rohl's "New Chronology". Any posts other than by us two will be moved to the Peanut Gallery (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=5206).

... just thought I'd jump right into the Peanut Gallery spirit...

BTW: love the new avatar/user title.

[Jet Black]

where is the avatar from? It looks like Gilliam to me.

[RAFH]

Dave's answer to umop's first post: the chronology of Egypt is wrong because it makes the bible wrong. It can be fixed by making it fit the bible.

That could also apply to reality. Reality is wrong because it doesn't fit with the babble and it could be fixed by simply believing it is in accord with the babble.

[umop apisdn w,I]

where is the avatar from? It looks like Gilliam to me.

It's Neil Innes, from the cover of his "How Sweet To Be An Idiot" album. It goes with the new user-title.

(Yeah, I know - I'm not supposed to post in this thread; but answering that question is unrelated to the discussion...)

[SAWells]

umop, Dave seems to think that because he's convinced about Rohl he doesn't need to debate with you.

And remember, it's conventional wisdom pterosaurs now.

[Faid]

I'm rather hesitant to start in on this again as I have already presented Rohl's arguments and evidence on other threads. Why restate it all here? I'm quite satisfied that Rohl is correct and that his arguments have stood up well to the criticism they have received here. I'm ready to move on and slay some more 'Conventional Wisdom Dragons.'Wow. Dave has gone from "show me your objections", to "your objections don't count and I'll explain why", to "I've already explained why your objections don't count, no I won't tell you where" and finally to "I've proven all my points, time to move on" in ONE day?

You must be really SCARED of this issue, dave, to try and hasten up your bail-out that way.

[VoxRat]

(I wonder if I should feel miffed that I've gone to the trouble of reading Rohl's book, and yet I'm consigned to the Peanut Gallery?)

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Hawkins says, "Hey ... thanks for doing the copying. I'll take a look at your summary and get back to you."

Wonder how long that will take?

Hour, Day, Week, Months, Year...

[Febble]

(I wonder if I should feel miffed that I've gone to the trouble of reading Rohl's book, and yet I'm consigned to the Peanut Gallery?)

Well, it would be nice to have your commentary. Perhaps we need an Exclusive Peanut Gallery thread. A Royal Peanut Box.

[Black5]

Anyone remotely familiar with Hawkins' method of operation knows not to hold their breath (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2204717&postcount=1228) waiting for him to follow through on promises made.

[ericmurphy]

where is the avatar from? It looks like Gilliam to me.

It's Neil Innes, from the cover of his "How Sweet To Be An Idiot" album. It goes with the new user-title.

(Yeah, I know - I'm not supposed to post in this thread; but answering that question is unrelated to the discussion...)

If it's Innes, it's not inconceivable Gilliam might have had something to do with it.

[Zadok001]

Anyone else think that Dean's opening salvo (which would perhaps be more analogous to the bombing of Dresden) is a bit overboard? He's gonna scare off Mr. Hawkins. Not that it matters, it'll just be one more thing Hawkins has scrambled away from in a blind panic...

[RAFH]

(I wonder if I should feel miffed that I've gone to the trouble of reading Rohl's book, and yet I'm consigned to the Peanut Gallery?)

Why would you feel miffed, you are with everyone else, except davey and I guess umop and I'm not sure if davey considers him acceptable any more anyway.

[VoxRat]

(I wonder if I should feel miffed that I've gone to the trouble of reading Rohl's book, and yet I'm consigned to the Peanut Gallery?)

Why would you feel miffed, you are with everyone else, except davey and I guess umop and I'm not sure if davey considers him acceptable any more anyway.
Well, Dave has made a factual determination that I am a moron, and has decided that umop is an idiot, so you'd think, knowing more geology than geologists, more genetics than geneticists, more virology than virologists, more oncology than oncologists, more molecular biology than molecular biologists, and more history than historians - all without ever cracking an introductory textbook on any of these subjects! - that he could take on a moron and an idiot, together, with one cerebral hemisphere tied behind his back!

[ericmurphy]

]While it is true that the Assyrian records have not been studied as much as the Egyptian records, there is no reason to believe that we will not discover the same thing -- that parallel and overlapping dynasties occurred and that the information we have from the king lists is less than reliable.
Evidence, Dave. Where is your evidence that these kings ruled for an average of two years, or that the records are "unreliable"?

You're not exactly giving us reasons to think your Bible is any more reliable than any other random document.

[Faid]

Amazing:
While it is true that the Assyrian records have not been studied as much as the Egyptian records, there is no reason to believe that we will not discover the same thing -- that parallel and overlapping dynasties occurred and that the information we have from the king lists is less than reliable."See, we may have no evidence whatsoever that Assyrian dynasties are overlapping, but I'm sure we'll find some eventually, so let's discard them already and save us the trouble of doing it later".

Seriously, if that's going to be the standard level of argumentation we'll be seeing from dave in this debate, I predict it's gonna end up the usual way (with dave declaring his opponent "an idiot not worthy of his time" and bailing out) pretty soon. Much sooner than usual, in fact.

[ninewands]

Just from my observation I think Dave's headed for a premature reboot.

[VoxRat]

...It's not unprecedented at all. Rohl gives several examples of the Hebrew authors doing just that. Where's your evidence that it's unprecedented? You're just are making a bald assertion, then changing the subject.No, actually Rohl doesn't "give several examples of Hebrew authors doing just that".

Rohl says that there are "many biblical examples where we see the Egyptian 's' (Heb. sin) rendered as 'sh' (Heb. shin). Just as Egyptian 'Askelan' is biblical 'Ashkelon'" (p. 162), but the only actual example that Rohl gives is the one I just quoted.

[Did you forget, Dave, that I actually have the book?]

[David M]

While it is true that the Assyrian records have not been studied as much as the Egyptian records, there is no reason to believe that we will not discover the same thing -- that parallel and overlapping dynasties occurred and that the information we have from the king lists is less than reliable.
Chronological revisionists challenge the conventional reconstruction of Mesopotamian history on several grounds. James et al. point to significant gaps (c. 1200-1150 BC and c. 1060-940 BC) in Assyria's archaeological record, an almost complete 'dark age' in Babylonia between the 11th and 8th centuries BC, and a string of stratigraphical and art-historical anomalies from both regions. They suggest that the Assyrian King List 'has been deliberately "smoothed out" to give the impression of an unbroken royal succession down to the 8th century BC', and point out that a 'notoriously problematic part of the King List overlaps with the dark period of Assyrian archaeology during the 12th to 10th centuries BC' (CD, pp. 271-308; cf. Rohl, TT, pp. 394-98). They point to inscriptional evidence that two dynasties ruled concurrently in Assyria after Tukulti-Ninurta I, and propose that a 'tuck' should be made here (and possibly earlier as well) to achieve a reduction. So far they have not published a detailed outworking of this, but a more thorough argument for parallel Assyrian dynasties has been made in the context of Rohl's revision by B. Newgrosh [2], and in the context of a shorter reduction by G. Hagens [3].
http://www.grovebooks.co.uk/resources/biblical/B29-Resources.html

Does Dave not even read the links he supplies.

In short, the archaeological evidence from Egypt for a shorter chronology is far from watertight. This is particularly damaging to Rohl's case, as much of his argument for chronological revision rests on it. It is less of a problem to James et al., as their argument is much more broadly based.

[rustynuts]

So Dave is doing the same sort of thing with the Assyrian rulers' chronology as with the Biblical chronology genealogy: where it doesn't 'fit' say there are hypothetical overlaps or missing bits. :rolleyes:

[Jet Black]

is there anything between

uncorroborated third hand assertions from biased sources

and

made from whole cloth?

[Occam's Aftershave]

While it is true that the Assyrian records have not been studied as much as the Egyptian records, there is no reason to believe that we will not discover the same thing -- that parallel and overlapping dynasties occurred and that the information we have from the king lists is less than reliable.
Chronological revisionists challenge the conventional reconstruction of Mesopotamian history on several grounds. James et al. point to significant gaps (c. 1200-1150 BC and c. 1060-940 BC) in Assyria's archaeological record, an almost complete 'dark age' in Babylonia between the 11th and 8th centuries BC, and a string of stratigraphical and art-historical anomalies from both regions. They suggest that the Assyrian King List 'has been deliberately "smoothed out" to give the impression of an unbroken royal succession down to the 8th century BC', and point out that a 'notoriously problematic part of the King List overlaps with the dark period of Assyrian archaeology during the 12th to 10th centuries BC' (CD, pp. 271-308; cf. Rohl, TT, pp. 394-98). They point to inscriptional evidence that two dynasties ruled concurrently in Assyria after Tukulti-Ninurta I, and propose that a 'tuck' should be made here (and possibly earlier as well) to achieve a reduction. So far they have not published a detailed outworking of this, but a more thorough argument for parallel Assyrian dynasties has been made in the context of Rohl's revision by B. Newgrosh [2], and in the context of a shorter reduction by G. Hagens [3].
http://www.grovebooks.co.uk/resources/biblical/B29-Resources.html

Does Dave not even read the links he supplies.

In short, the archaeological evidence from Egypt for a shorter chronology is far from watertight. This is particularly damaging to Rohl's case, as much of his argument for chronological revision rests on it. It is less of a problem to James et al., as their argument is much more broadly based.

No surprises here. Dave has presented evidence that unwittingly rebuts his own arguments so many time we even came up with a term for it:

the Dave Hawkins suipwn.

:D:D:D

[Jet Black]

now dave has decreed himself to be the person who is a good judge of someone's scholarship and is saying that Dean is being dishonest.

[VoxRat]

I would love to find ONE POSTER at this forum who is honest with evidence. I have not found anyone yet. Is there anyone? Certainly not that Dave Hawkins fellow, who baldly asserted that
Rohl gives several examples of the Hebrew authors doing just that. [substituting 'sh' for Egyptian 's']. Where's your evidence that it's unprecedented? ...then blithely ignored the evidence that that assertion is just false.

[Faid]

Well, well... That was fast, as I predicted. Unable to provide evidence supporting his arguments, dave resorts to attacking his opponent, and threatening to put him "on ignore":Dean ... That's not a problem for me - because by the conventional chronology you shouldn't be able to give me what I am asking for.

But if Rohl's chronology is true then you should be able to, so that you can't is a problem for you.This statement reveals a very poor attitude from someone who is supposed to be a scholar, which I thought was a person in search of the truth. Apparently, the Dean Anderson definition of a scholar is someone who holds on smugly to his pre-committments in spite of mountains of evidence that they may be wrong. An honest scholar would say, "Wow. Every time we have taken a close look at other chronologies, we have had to shorten them ... maybe I should take a look at this one also." But not Dean. He's comfortable with the status quo. He's not moving an inch until someone drags him, kicking and screaming. What a lousy excuse for a scholar! I would love to find ONE POSTER at this forum who is honest with evidence. I have not found anyone yet. Is there anyone? If there is, please step forward and I will gladly engage you and put Dean on 'Ignore.'

Just to illustrate WHY Dean should change his attitude and be SEARCHING for problems in his beloved chronology, rather than dishonestly pretending that all has always been well, all is well currently, and all will continue to be well, here's what has happened to Ancient Mesopotamian chronology over the last century ...

[Snip red herring image that dave put there to make his post look supported]

What honest scholar would not likewise believe that ALL ancient chronologies should be reassessed?

Notice the irony: Dave accuses Dean of not being an honest scholar for "not looking at the evidence"... But dave HAS no evidence. His only claim is that, since historians were wrong about other lists before, than this list of kings is probably wrong too, in spite of all the support it appears to have. And, unless his opponent proves to him that no contradicting evidence will ever be found against it, he will consider it flawed.

That is apparently a sound argument in Daveworld.

I got news for you, dave: It's not Dean's job to "PROVE" there are no black swans; It's YOUR job to FIND one.

Grow up, and learn to discuss like an adult.

[VoxRat]

What honest scholar would not likewise believe that ALL ancient chronologies should be reassessed? What honest Sunday School Tyro would try to paint a picture where serious historians are not continuously collectively seeking new evidence and reassessing chronologies in light of it?

What honest Sunday School Tyro would try to equate "skeptical about my favorite evidence free scenario" with "blindly adhering to academic orthodoxy"?

[Faid]

No, Dave.

It doesn't show that we don't really have a good Assyrian chronology.

It claims that we don't really have a good Assyrian chronology.

Since the article you have linked is a piece in Rohl's own newsletter written by a Doctor of Medicine (he practices in Bolton, Lancashire) with no training in historical research methods at all - one of Rohl's "followers" who was specifically asked by Rohl to find evidence to match his theory, why should I believe that article over the opinion of professionals in the field?

The article gives many speculative reasons to think the chronology could be shortened - but utterly fails to address any of the conflicting evidence or show how the contradictions brought about by this shortening can be resolved.

In other words - just like his mentor Rohl - he is cherry-picking from evidence that he can make support his predetermined conclusion rather than trying to find a conclusion that fits all the available evidence. And even by doing this with the specific intention of looking for "loopholes" by which he could reduce the Assyrian chronology, he was only able to do so by 150 years, rather than the 350 that Rohl needs.It's not impressive to me to focus on the fact that the guy is a doctor. Your criticism of his lack of training tells me that you only trust someone who has been brainwashed in the OC. The work on Assyrian Chronology is not done, but progress has been made and if you were an honest scholar who was really looking for the truth, you'd try to HELP in the effort, rather than sit back and criticize.Does anyone understand what dave's saying here? It looks to me like "Since my POV is right a priori, only those who agree with it are honest, and all others are 'brainwashed'; therefore, Dean, you are dishonest for not being on my side".

It's like an Ad Hominem formed on the basis of begging the question.

Leave it to dave to come up with new, complex fallacies!

[Lucretius III]

Dave still doesn't understand how research and academia work does he?
He seems to still think that all that is done in universities is learning things parrot fashion the become "part of the(vague & nebuluos) Establishment *"
IF any reputable scholar could come up real evidence that the chronologies (in this case) were innaccurate to any great degree that would be the way to really make a name for himself or herself.

* Possibly the same thing as the Illuminati

[Patchy]

At least we are honest ... We admit we are trying to compress the chronology ... Your camp OTOH tries to make everything very old, yet they don't admit this bias.

Our "camp" is called "reality," and doesn't try to make everything very old--it just objectively, dispassionately, carefully, precisely, notes that everything is very old.

Which ends up being confirmed by multiple independent lines of evidence which ALL converge unmistakably on old dates.

Our "camp" never has a "need" for 200 years there, or 2 million years there---reality simply is what it is. YOUR "camp", by your own admission, starts with a conclusion and then tries desperately to force observations into it whether they fit or not. You're the ones who "need" years (or sometimes, NOT-years) depending on what twisted interpretation of a 2,000 year old campfire story you're trying, and failing, to prop up.

Science works by making the observations first and following where they lead, whether we particularly "like" the results or not. And all observations lead to an old Earth, and an even older universe.



(Incidentally, this process also has predictive abilities that reach into the future--kinda like prophecy, except these work, and they're actually made in advance instead of retrofitted. For instance, we know what's going to happen to our sun in about 4 billion years, when it exhausts its supply of hydrogen to process at the core. We don't "like" the result (and frankly I doubt if we'll still be around to suffer it) but...there it is.



What does your scripture tell you about our sun going Red Giant on us?)


Thought so.

[VoxRat]

At least we are honest ... We admit we are trying to compress the chronology ... Your camp OTOH tries to make everything very old, yet they don't admit this bias.Wow!

This one is stunning!

"At least we're honest - we admit that our pretense of objectivity is dishonest! You, on the other hand, don't admit that your scholarship is dishonest, which very fact makes it dishonest!"

You really have to wonder... can this really by meant seriously???

[James Hannam]

On all those Assyrian kings.

This site lists Roman Emperors:

http://www.unrv.com/government/emperor.php

It lists thirty odd between 236AD and 286AD so why are 26 Assyrian kings in 50 years considered a problem?

Best wishes

James

[VoxRat]

If Dave Hawkins were honest about this whole "reassessing in light of evidence" stuff, he would tell us what's wrong with all the counterarguments to Rohl's contentions that are collected here (http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html), instead of studiously ignoring it, repeating Rohl's claims in forum after forum, and claiming that no one has "refuted" them.

[Lucretius III]

On all those Assyrian kings.

This site lists Roman Emperors:

http://www.unrv.com/government/emperor.php

It lists thirty odd between 236AD and 286AD so why are 26 Assyrian kings in 50 years considered a problem?

Best wishes

James

From Roman History we know precisely why this happened ,generally we take the period of 253 & 284 as a series of civil wars ,with at times parts of the Empire (the Gallic Empire ) splitting off from the rest leading to many "Emperors", in effect nearly every general at that time was an "Emperor" at one time or another some at the same time as other pretenders.
As far as I am aware there are no records either in the Assyrian records or elsewhere that would imply a similar situation.

Crisis_of_the_Third_Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century)

[VoxRat]

On all those Assyrian kings.

This site lists Roman Emperors:

http://www.unrv.com/government/emperor.php

It lists thirty odd between 236AD and 286AD so why are 26 Assyrian kings in 50 years considered a problem?

Best wishes

James

From Roman History we know precisely why this happened ,generally we take the period of 253 & 284 as a series of civil wars ,with at times parts of the Empire (the Gallic Empire ) splitting off from the rest leading to many "Emperors", in effect nearly every general at that time was an "Emperor" at one time or another some at the same time as other pretenders.
As far as I am aware there are no records either in the Assyrian records or elsewhere that would imply a similar situation.

Crisis_of_the_Third_Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century)

Well, to be fair are there any records that lead us to believe that a similar situation did not exist at that time in Assyria?

(Asks VoxRat, who knows bugger-all about Assyrian history, but who sees similar fluctuations in the average tenure of Egyptian monarchs)

[rustynuts]

Well this is just a classic:

At least we are honest ... We admit we are trying to compress the chronology ... Your camp OTOH tries to make everything very old, yet they don't admit this bias.

after Dean nailed Hawkins in his previous post.

As usual Hawkins has got his approach to research, evidence gathering, interpretation and drawing of conclusions completely arse-about-face. What a chump.

[Gregor]

Well, to be fair are there any records that lead us to believe that a similar situation did not exist at that time in Assyria?



How many (if any) from the Assyrian list were father - son successions, as opposed to warrior claimants to the throne. Father-son successions would appear to rule out quick turn-arounds through biological realities.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

The amount of projection evinced in Hawkins' posts is also noteworthy.

It is as if he thinks that everyone else is as clueless as he is about whatever subject he expounds upon.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Well, to be fair are there any records that lead us to believe that a similar situation did not exist at that time in Assyria?



How many (if any) from the Assyrian list were father - son successions, as opposed to warrior claimants to the throne. Father-son successions would appear to rule out quick turn-arounds through biological realities.

If the Assyrian kings chose their names upon their assumption of the throne, then the heritage of the kings may be too muddied to determine from a single list. What do we know about this?

[Pappy Jack]

Well, to be fair are there any records that lead us to believe that a similar situation did not exist at that time in Assyria?



How many (if any) from the Assyrian list were father - son successions, as opposed to warrior claimants to the throne. Father-son successions would appear to rule out quick turn-arounds through biological realities.

If the Assyrian kings chose their names upon their assumption of the throne, then the heritage of the kings may be too muddied to determine from a single list. What do we know about this?
The Wiki article on the Assyrian Kings Lists at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_Assyria

notes several monarchs as 'son of'. I have no knowledge of how definite this relationship is, but does reference the debate in the archaeological community over the chronology of the Near East, the relevant Wiki article on which is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_ancient_Near_East.

[ericmurphy]

At least we are honest ... We admit we are trying to compress the chronology ... Your camp OTOH tries to make everything very old, yet they don't admit this bias.Wow!

This one is stunning!

"At least we're honest - we admit that our pretense of objectivity is dishonest! You, on the other hand, don't admit that your scholarship is dishonest, which very fact makes it dishonest!"

You really have to wonder... can this really by meant seriously???

As Stephen Colbert would have said had he been reading this thread, "The facts have a well-known old-earth bias."

[ericmurphy]

Dave's method of defending Rohl's chronology parallels his defense of any other apologetic position: he doesn't defend it. Instead, he tries to find room—any room—for doubting the consensus view, and if he can find such doubt, he considers his case made. Dave cannot find any actual evidence that the Assyiran chronology is inaccurate, but he quotes sources who say it might be inaccurate, and therefore if the Assyrian chronology might be inaccurate, then of course Rohl's chronology is correct.

Dave has never gotten, nor will he ever get, the concept of affirmative evidence for one's own position. He equates failure of absolute proof of any other position with proof for his own position.

[Lucretius III]

How many (if any) from the Assyrian list were father - son successions, as opposed to warrior claimants to the throne. Father-son successions would appear to rule out quick turn-arounds through biological realities.

If the Assyrian kings chose their names upon their assumption of the throne, then the heritage of the kings may be too muddied to determine from a single list. What do we know about this?
The Wiki article on the Assyrian Kings Lists at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_Assyria

notes several monarchs as 'son of'. I have no knowledge of how definite this relationship is, but does reference the debate in the archaeological community over the chronology of the Near East, the relevant Wiki article on which is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_ancient_Near_East.

You beat me to it.
It does appear that the regnal dates are also refered to in these lists

Old Assyrian period
The remainder of the King List then has an unbroken chain of regnal lengths from Enlil-nasir II on. Disparities between the different versions of the King List for the reigns of Ashur-nadin-apli (ca. 1196–1194 BC (short)) and Ninurta-apal-Ekur] (ca. 1182–1180 BC (short)) contribute to the debate over the chronology of the ancient Near East.[2][8]


Middle Assyrian Period

The dates up to Ninurta-apal-Ekur (ca. 1182–1180 BC) are subject to debate, as some of the regnal lengths vary over the different versions of the King List. The dates given below are based on Assyrian King Lists B and C, which give only three years to Ashur-nadin-apli, and the same to Ninurta-apal-Ekur.
So it would appear that it would difficult, if not impossible to have a similar situation to say the year of the Six Roman Emperors.
While there are some disputes over the dating it appears these seem to be relatively minor matters of a few years here and there and not the massive recalculation that Dave would have to rely on .

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

OK. That makes things much clearer. Thanks for doing the research for me.
I was too lazy to do more than ask the question.

OK... really I *am* busy doing research on an entirely different (and boring) subject.

[ninewands]

I obviously cannot give you all that you are asking for here.
That's not a problem for me - because by the conventional chronology you shouldn't be able to give me what I am asking for.

But if Rohl's chronology is true then you should be able to, so that you can't is a problem for you.
This statement reveals a very poor attitude from someone who is supposed to be a scholar, which I thought was a person in search of the truth. Apparently, the Dean Anderson definition of a scholar is someone who holds on smugly to his pre-committments in spite of mountains of evidence that they may be wrong. An honest scholar would say, "Wow. Every time we have taken a close look at other chronologies, we have had to shorten them ... maybe I should take a look at this one also." But not Dean. He's comfortable with the status quo. He's not moving an inch until someone drags him, kicking and screaming. What a lousy excuse for a scholar! I would love to find ONE POSTER at this forum who is honest with evidence. I have not found anyone yet. Is there anyone? If there is, please step forward and I will gladly engage you and put Dean on 'Ignore.'
Is this, or is this not, one of the most impressive demonstrations of Dave's laser-sharp power of logic and deductive reasoning you (collective "you," that is) have EVAHR seen?

NOT?

I didn't think so either.

ETA: Dean's statements are nothing more or less than a concise recap of which claim is "wounded" by Dave's inability to answer Dean's questions. It says absolutely nothing about Dean rejecting Dave's alleged "evidence."

[David M]

On all those Assyrian kings.

This site lists Roman Emperors:

http://www.unrv.com/government/emperor.php

It lists thirty odd between 236AD and 286AD so why are 26 Assyrian kings in 50 years considered a problem?

Best wishes

James

To be accurate it lists 12 not thirty-odd and you will note that none of these are dynastic transfers of power.

This is documented as a period of politcal upheaval with Caesers being killed of by their rivals.

[ericmurphy]

Dean's statements are nothing more or less than a concise recap of which claim is "wounded" by Dave's inability to answer Dean's questions. It says absolutely nothing about Dean rejecting Dave's alleged "evidence."

It's yet another example of Dave's curiously asymmetrical standard of evidence. All Dave thinks he needs to do is show that his opponent's position may possibly be incorrect. Not that it is incorrect, or even that it is likely to be incorrect. But only that it's not impossible it could be incorrect.

If Dave can show that Dean's position is possibly incorrect, even without any evidence that it actually is incorrect, then Dean should admit that his position is incorrect, and accept Dave's position as being correct.

Even if Dean's position and Dave's position do not exhaust the possibilities.

[Faid]

It's even worse.

Since Dean cannot exclude the possibility of some kind of evidence, appearing sometime in the future, that could potentially disprove his position...

Then that means the evidence already exists (sure, noone has actually found it yet, but it's out there), Deans position is de facto incorrect, and Dean is "dishonest" for still supporting it (and should propably be stripped of his titles for that, like JB and others).

It's laughable, of course... But, when one remembers that people who think that way are actually trying to force their views into Academia, it gets scary.

[James Hannam]

To be accurate it lists 12 not thirty-odd and you will note that none of these are dynastic transfers of power.

This is documented as a period of politcal upheaval with Caesers being killed of by their rivals.

Well, I've just gone back and counted. There were 29. So either you can't count or you stopped scrolling down when you reached the first split into parallel dynasties.

Best wishes

James

[Gregor]

Then obviously because

QE1 reigned for 44 years
James i reigned the next 22
Charles i the next 24

Ave. 30

Thus, 26 Assyrians - 780 years

Or maybe I'm wrong and anecdotes don't prove anything. . .

[David M]

To be accurate it lists 12 not thirty-odd and you will note that none of these are dynastic transfers of power.

This is documented as a period of politcal upheaval with Caesers being killed of by their rivals.

Well, I've just gone back and counted. There were 29. So either you can't count or you stopped scrolling down when you reached the first split into parallel dynasties.

Best wishes

James

You are correct, I got mixed up and counted to 268 rather than 286. My apologies.

However as noted before the short lived emperors are not dynastic successions until you get to Diocletian and Maximianus, also it is specifically known that the empire had fragmented and that there was a Gallic Empire in parrallel, and a split into the western and eastern empires. That is not something that we have records, or strong suggestive evidence, for the assyrians as far as I am able to discover.

[James Hannam]

However as noted before the short lived emperors are not dynastic successions until you get to Diocletian and Maximianus, also it is specifically known that the empire had fragmented and that there was a Gallic Empire in parrallel, and a split into the western and eastern empires. That is not something that we have records, or strong suggestive evidence, for the assyrians as far as I am able to discover.

Agreed. But aside from the king lists we don't have all that much evidence of anything in Assyria. Not that I'm supporting Rohl or Dave. Rather, anyone who makes cut and dried comments about events prior to 700BC or so deserves to be called on it.

Best wishes

James

[David M]

However as noted before the short lived emperors are not dynastic successions until you get to Diocletian and Maximianus, also it is specifically known that the empire had fragmented and that there was a Gallic Empire in parrallel, and a split into the western and eastern empires. That is not something that we have records, or strong suggestive evidence, for the assyrians as far as I am able to discover.

Agreed. But aside from the king lists we don't have all that much evidence of anything in Assyria. Not that I'm supporting Rohl or Dave. Rather, anyone who makes cut and dried comments about events prior to 700BC or so deserves to be called on it.

Best wishes

James

I don't think anyone is making cut and dried comments (other than 1 person i could mention). On the other hand major events such as the splintering of empires does tend to be implied from evidence. If the Assyrian empire had split one would expect to see mention of treaties enacted with both parts or archeolgical evidence indicating civil war was taking place.

Such evidence to imply these events exists for the Hittites and also for the reduction in size of the Egyptian empire after Rameses II and the rival kings after Ramesses XI.

As such major events have left their traces in other cultures of that period it would seem the most probable reason why no evidence of such a major occurrence in Assyria that resulted in 50 rulers in 26 years exists is that it did not occur.

[VoxRat]

From the Peanut Gallery ... On all those Assyrian kings.

This site lists Roman Emperors:

http://www.unrv.com/government/emperor.php

It lists thirty odd between 236AD and 286AD so why are 26 Assyrian kings in 50 years considered a problem?

Best wishes

JamesThanks, James. Dean, take note. This pretty much vaporizes your argument with both the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Have you got anything else?
:rolleyes:

Typical Fundy all-or-nothing "logic".

No, Dave. It doesn't "vaporize" Dean's argument. You forgot to notice Dean's point about dynastic succession.

But aside from that no matter what "anything else" Dean might have for you, you're going to say "is that 100%, absolute proof of your timeline? No? Well than you've got nothing!"

As James noted, you're not going to get any single piece of evidence that's absolute 100% confirmation of anything before about 700 BCE. You're stuck with going with the preponderance of evidence. I won't presume to speak for James Hannam, but if I had made the same point (as in fact I did (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=145306#post145306)) and found my words twisted to justify your "we don't know everything therefore we don't know anything - unless of course it's consistent with my Bible-based preconceptions" - I'd be pissed off.

But if you'll stop and think for a moment: the same criticism applies to your new hero - only more so. He's got a bunch of mutually contradictory scraps which he is ludicrously trying to argue make for a more consistent picture than the conventional chronology.

I'll believe you're serious about this "re-examination" if and when you tackle the criticisms of Rohl's scheme collected here (http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html).

[VoxRat]

You know the really sad part about this info from James is that if Dean were truly an honest scholar in search of the truth, he could have figured out on his own very easily that 26 kings in 50 years is not a problem. Dean is really very capable at digging up all manner of esoteric information that other people would never be able to find. But apparently, this particular bit of info was too challenging ... or something like that.

Anyway ... it's very frustrating to discuss things with people who are really not seeking the truth ... I continue to hope that either Dean will change or someone honest will show up.

Transparent bluster and bravado.

If you have so little respect for Dean (or anyone else here) why are you bothering to even participate?

[Faid]

Wow. Dave is REALLY desperate.

He quotes another poster from this thread, completely ignores all the answers provided to the poster on this thread (including the obvious difference of successive dynasties), presents it as irrefutable information, and immediately begins to accuse Dean of being dishonest and an unworthy scholar!

I don't know whether it's his fiasco in the GC thread, or the final obliteration of his P=S+F claim, but dave has been showing his true colours more and more recently. I wonder what's next...

[Faid]

You know the really sad part about this info from James is that if Dean were truly an honest scholar in search of the truth, he could have figured out on his own very easily that 26 kings in 50 years is not a problem. Dean is really very capable at digging up all manner of esoteric information that other people would never be able to find. But apparently, this particular bit of info was too challenging ... or something like that.

Anyway ... it's very frustrating to discuss things with people who are really not seeking the truth ... I continue to hope that either Dean will change or someone honest will show up.

Transparent bluster and bravado.

If you have so little respect for Dean (or anyone else here) why are you bothering to even participate?That's the whole point. He's making comments like that because he wants to build up his excuse for bailing out (that "Dean is dishonest and an unworthy opponent") as soon as possible: He knows he will have to scram soon.

[Gooch's dad]

Wow. Dean's last post absolutely nailed Dave to the wall. The info on Nabu-kudurri-user and Tiglath-Pileser, both being confirmed as 12th century, is something that Dave cannot address. Of course, he won't, he'll whine that Dean is somehow being unreasonable.

Nice job, Dean. It's great to see a champion in action!

[Pappy Jack]

That's the whole point. He's making comments like that because he wants to build up his excuse for bailing out (that "Dean is dishonest and an unworthy opponent") as soon as possible: He knows he will have to scram soon.
It does appear similar to the exit strategy Dave developed for the GCEE thread with JB. It's strange that everyone Dave 'debates' ends up losing Dave's 'respect' sooner or later. Why would this be?

[Faid]

I wonder: What do late Roman Emperors have in common with this (http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/AKL.html) list?

What do you suppose that "relationship in contemporary documents" means, Gloatin'Dave? How about "son of the above"?

[VoxRat]

That's the whole point. He's making comments like that because he wants to build up his excuse for bailing out (that "Dean is dishonest and an unworthy opponent") as soon as possible: He knows he will have to scram soon.
It does appear similar to the exit strategy Dave developed for the GCEE thread with JB. It's strange that everyone Dave 'debates' ends up losing Dave's 'respect' sooner or later. Why would this be?Two possibilities - not necessarily mutually exclusive:

Monumental Egotism: Dave seems to think that not one of the scores of people who have engaged him in "debate" (if you can call it that) is in his league of perspicacity or integrity. (Well, that may actually be true, but not in the way he seems to think).

Raw Fear: Dave's bluster and bravado, his display of contempt, is a cover-up for the fact that he knows his whole world, the whole basis of his self-esteem, and of the esteem of his family and community, is wrapped up in this fantasy that his biblical mythology is True, and that he is a Champion of that Truth, against those Godless modernists. But to actually engage in honest debate about it would be very, very dangerous, and he knows it.

That's why he studiously ignores the website specifically devoted to debunking Rohl (http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html), the one I've brought to this discussion at least a half dozen times.

[Pappy Jack]

^ VR, I have long since given up providing links to sites for Dave to read and reflect upon as it appears that he never goes near them if he suspects that they might undermine his position and leave him unable to mount an argument against them.

I remember at IIDB suggesting Dave look at the site you have linked to in respect of Rohl, I remember providing Dave with the link (many times) to the Martin Gardner chapter on pyramidiocy, I remember Mike providng links to sites explaining how pi might be incorporated into the measurements of Khufu's Pyramid by ways entirely unrelated to 'highly advanced pre-Flood knowledge', I remember Dave being provided with links to sites that discussed the astronomical evidence for dating Khufu's Pyramid to a time much earlier than demanded by Dave's Piazzi Smyth-derived construction date, etc, etc. Did Dave show any sign of having paid any attention to these sites? Did Dave develop reasoned and evidence-based refutations of the information and arguments made on these sites tha undermined his claims and assertions? Rhetorical questions, as everyone knows the answer already.

[ravenscape]

I moved a couple of posts to this thread (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=5251) in TCH.

[Gregor]

. . . anyone who makes cut and dried comments about events prior to 700BC or so deserves to be called on it.

Best wishes

James

Similarly, anyone that points to a series of events that bear no link to other events some 1,500 years earlier deserves to be called on it.

[David M]

I wonder: What do late Roman Emperors have in common with this (http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/AKL.html) list?

What do you suppose that "relationship in contemporary documents" means, Gloatin'Dave? How about "son of the above"?

That version of the list, showing famillial descent in both the king lists and the contemporary documents blows Dave's arguments out of the water. There is absolutely no way of fitting them in a 50 year span unless Assyrian kings were capable of fathering sons at the age of about 5 even if we assume that all those without contemporary support were in fact not the sons of previous kings but in fact uncles.

[James Hannam]

I'm not a defender of Rohl (or Dave), but it seems to me there is too much armchair psychology on this thread. Dave's motives may be transparent but I fear that is not relevant to the argument about Rohl's chronology.

Just my two cents.

Best wishes

James

[Faid]

Dave's motives have never been an issue (we all understand them): It's his tactics and actions that infuriate people. Check what he did with your post, for example: Ignoring the answers to it, presenting it as irrefutable evidence hands down, and immediately accusing his opponent as dishonest and an unworthy scholar, for not agreeing with it (and with dave's opinion, that he considers already established).

Dave behaves like that all the time, and, IMO, such behavior needs to be called out on. It's not 'armchair psychology'; it's common sense.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Dave's motives have never been an issue (we all understand them): It's his tactics and actions that infuriate people. Check what he did with your post, for example: Ignoring the answers to it, presenting it as irrefutable evidence hands down, and immediately accusing his opponent as dishonest and an unworthy scholar, for not agreeing with it (and with dave's opinion, that he considers already established).

Dave behaves like that all the time, and, IMO, such behavior needs to be called out on. It's not 'armchair psychology'; it's common sense.

What Faid said. No one disrespects Dave because of his religious beliefs. Everyone disrespects him because of the slimy and dishonest way he goes about trying to justify and preach them.

Dave Hawkins is the poster boy for "Lying for Jesus".

[VoxRat]

I'm not a defender of Rohl (or Dave), but it seems to me there is too much armchair psychology on this thread. Dave's motives may be transparent but I fear that is not relevant to the argument about Rohl's chronology.

Just my two cents.

Best wishes

James
"Armchair psychology" is what you're left with when one side of the argument adamantly refuses to address the issues and the specific questions central to making any progress in the argument:

You're left with "why won't he answer that question?"

[James Hannam]

You're left with "why won't he answer that question?"

Actually, you're left with "why don't you just ignore him?" Works for me.

Best wishes

James

[VoxRat]

You're left with "why won't he answer that question?"

Actually, you're left with "why don't you just ignore him?" Works for me.
Well, I'm delighted that that works for you.

But I think the dogged determination to avoid answering it makes "why won't he answer that question?" more interesting than the question he won't answer.

I.e., to a lot of us, we follow these discussions, not so much to learn whether or not the Bible is accurate history (kind of a no-brainer) but as a window into Fundamentalist thinking.

Do you have a problem with that?

[ericmurphy]

It's amazing how frequently people will ask us (and by "us," I mean those of us who have been following Dave around the for the past few years), "Why do you even bother? You'll never convince him of anything." I'd think it would be clear to anyone who reads even a single Dave thread that none of the regulars here is interested in "convincing" Dave of anything.

We do it because, for whatever reason, we find it entertaining. If you don't find it entertaining, don't read the threads. But don't whine to those of us who do find it entertaining that we shouldn't find it entertaining.

[JoeNothin]

It's amazing how frequently people will ask us (and by "us," I mean those of us who have been following Dave around the for the past few years), "Why do you even bother? You'll never convince him of anything." I'd think it would be clear to anyone who reads even a single Dave thread that none of the regulars here is interested in "convincing" Dave of anything.

We do it because, for whatever reason, we find it entertaining. If you don't find it entertaining, don't read the threads. But don't whine to those of us who do find it entertaining that we shouldn't find it entertaining.
And to add to that, some of us lurk Dave's threads because so many smart people, educated in so many different areas, explain their fields of expertise in simple clear terms that anyone, except perhaps Dave, can understand.

[David B]

It's amazing how frequently people will ask us (and by "us," I mean those of us who have been following Dave around the for the past few years), "Why do you even bother? You'll never convince him of anything." I'd think it would be clear to anyone who reads even a single Dave thread that none of the regulars here is interested in "convincing" Dave of anything.

We do it because, for whatever reason, we find it entertaining. If you don't find it entertaining, don't read the threads. But don't whine to those of us who do find it entertaining that we shouldn't find it entertaining.

I think it's a bit more than entertainment, entertaining though I find it.

There is the opportunity to learn a lot of really cool stuff, whether in botany, genetics, geology, history, the list goes on. Biblical studies, even.

While the chances of turning Dave are, admittedly, remote, the chance of some other Christian following the thread reading something that leads a penny to drop would appear to me much higher, even if it leads them to being an Old Earth creationist who thinks that their putative god set up evolution, and perhaps gives a little nudge now and again, and who gives up on biblical inerrancy.

Even that would be progress - look at honourable (if mistaken) believers like Glen Morton, whose name I only came across reading these threads.

David B

[RAFH]

It's amazing how frequently people will ask us (and by "us," I mean those of us who have been following Dave around the for the past few years), "Why do you even bother? You'll never convince him of anything." I'd think it would be clear to anyone who reads even a single Dave thread that none of the regulars here is interested in "convincing" Dave of anything.

We do it because, for whatever reason, we find it entertaining. If you don't find it entertaining, don't read the threads. But don't whine to those of us who do find it entertaining that we shouldn't find it entertaining.

Do you have a permit for such entertainment? You must have a permit.

[Dave Hawkins]

I'm not a defender of Rohl (or Dave), but it seems to me there is too much armchair psychology on this thread. Dave's motives may be transparent but I fear that is not relevant to the argument about Rohl's chronology.

Just my two cents.

Best wishes

JamesIt's all they've got, James. If they didn't engage in armchair psychology, they wouldn't have anything to say. Their arguments get blown to smithereens, so they have to find consolation somewhere. Let 'em have it I say.

[RAFH]

I'm not a defender of Rohl (or Dave), but it seems to me there is too much armchair psychology on this thread. Dave's motives may be transparent but I fear that is not relevant to the argument about Rohl's chronology.

Just my two cents.

Best wishes

JamesIt's all they've got, James. If they didn't engage in armchair psychology, they wouldn't have anything to say. Their arguments get blown to smithereens projecting again?, so they have to find consolation somewhere. Let 'em have it I say.

Then again, it appears you don't quite understand what James is going on about. What he's saying/questioning, davey, is why bother with someone as ignorant, illogical, wrong, inconsistent, dishonest and silly as you. He doesn't see the point to it. I can guess why you don't get it, kind of tough on the old ego, which seems to be about the only thing you have going for you. Just as long as you can keep asserting to yourself you are right and know it all, you can keep looking at the face in the mirror. Well, whatever gets you through the day, davey.

[Pappy Jack]

It's all they've got, James. If they didn't engage in armchair psychology, they wouldn't have anything to say. Their arguments get blown to smithereens, so they have to find consolation somewhere. Let 'em have it I say.
I would be very interested in your definition of blown to smithereens and any current examples you can provide of exploding smithereens.

[Jet Black]

It's all they've got, James. If they didn't engage in armchair psychology, they wouldn't have anything to say. Their arguments get blown to smithereens, so they have to find consolation somewhere. Let 'em have it I say.

it's your arguments that keep changing dave. What was it again.... the flood covered the whole of the grand canyon area, then it rose intermittently, then there were massive tides. Dimetrodon was washed in, then it was swimming, then it ran in and out with the tides, then it wasn't even dimetrodon... gosh dave, you have a crap memory to go with your crap arguments.

[Jet Black]

It's all they've got, James. If they didn't engage in armchair psychology, they wouldn't have anything to say. Their arguments get blown to smithereens, so they have to find consolation somewhere. Let 'em have it I say.
I would be very interested in your definition of blown to smithereens and any current examples you can provide of exploding smithereens.

an excellent example would be the EE thread between dave and myself on how the grand canyon was deposited, in which dave's argument was blown to smithereens over an issue that he claimed was only a small problem, but then resulted in the total rewriting of his model and the sequestration of an argument from an expert on deposition and footprint formation who didn't even know that spiders could leave footprints in sand.

[Jet Black]

I'm not a defender of Rohl (or Dave), but it seems to me there is too much armchair psychology on this thread. Dave's motives may be transparent but I fear that is not relevant to the argument about Rohl's chronology.

Just my two cents.

Best wishes

James

well this is just people chilling out. We do all our learning watching Umop pull dave's arguments apart.

[VoxRat]

I'm not a defender of Rohl (or Dave), but it seems to me there is too much armchair psychology on this thread. Dave's motives may be transparent but I fear that is not relevant to the argument about Rohl's chronology.

Just my two cents.

Best wishes

JamesIt's all they've got, James. If they didn't engage in armchair psychology, they wouldn't have anything to say. Their arguments get blown to smithereens, so they have to find consolation somewhere. Let 'em have it I say.

Pure, content-free, troll-bait.

:rolleyes:

Right. Our arguments get "blown to smithereens" by your studiously ignoring them.

[Pappy Jack]

I would be very interested in your definition of blown to smithereens and any current examples you can provide of exploding smithereens.

an excellent example would be the EE thread between dave and myself on how the grand canyon was deposited, in which dave's argument was blown to smithereens over an issue that he claimed was only a small problem, but then resulted in the total rewriting of his model and the sequestration of an argument from an expert on deposition and footprint formation who didn't even know that spiders could leave footprints in sand.
Well, exactly, but I was rather hoping that Dave could show us a similar example that would exemplify what I imagine is his idea of arguments contra his position being 'blown to smithereens.' If he is relying on his interpretation of James's post IRO Roman emperors = Assyrian kings in the brevity of their reigns, then I guess Dave has a rather idiosyncratic understanding of what 'blown to smithereens' means.

[Jet Black]

I would be very interested in your definition of blown to smithereens and any current examples you can provide of exploding smithereens.

an excellent example would be the EE thread between dave and myself on how the grand canyon was deposited, in which dave's argument was blown to smithereens over an issue that he claimed was only a small problem, but then resulted in the total rewriting of his model and the sequestration of an argument from an expert on deposition and footprint formation who didn't even know that spiders could leave footprints in sand.
Well, exactly, but I was rather hoping that Dave could show us a similar example that would exemplify what I imagine is his idea of arguments contra his position being 'blown to smithereens.' If he is relying on his interpretation of James's post IRO Roman emperors = Assyrian kings in the brevity of their reigns, then I guess Dave has a rather idiosyncratic understanding of what 'blown to smithereens' means.

he'll say "It was in that thread where I posted that thing that time"

[Martin.au]

Ahh so this is where Dave is hiding.

[ninewands]

I'm not a defender of Rohl (or Dave), but it seems to me there is too much armchair psychology on this thread. Dave's motives may be transparent but I fear that is not relevant to the argument about Rohl's chronology.

Just my two cents.

Best wishes

JamesIt's all they've got, James. If they didn't engage in armchair psychology, they wouldn't have anything to say. Their arguments get blown to smithereens, so they have to find consolation somewhere. Let 'em have it I say.

http://webpages.charter.net/kylegdb/smilies/38.gifhttp://www.clipart.co.uk/clipart/mazeguy/animated/rotfl.gifhttp://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gifhttp://www.v-rodforums.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl3.gifhttp://drliew.net/emoticons/laugh_13.gifhttp://www.comicguide.net/images/smilies/lol1.gifhttp://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/dirtbox/pics/muttley.gifhttp://www.todojuegos.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/gathering.gif

[Faid]

Dave runs away from Dean's questions, avoids the EE thread like the plague, lays low for a couple of days, then appears in the peanut gallery thread to post nothing but content-free flamebait...

And it's our side that's supposedly "got nothing", and our arguments that got "blown to smithereens".

How, dave? With your mighty "face-to-fist" technique?

But sure, whatever makes your hurt little ego feel better. Now, are you going to respond to Dean, or have you thrown in the towel already?

[Pendaric]

<Derail moved to http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=5317>

[RAFH]

I'm not a defender of Rohl (or Dave), but it seems to me there is too much armchair psychology on this thread. Dave's motives may be transparent but I fear that is not relevant to the argument about Rohl's chronology.

Just my two cents.

Best wishes

James

well this is just people chilling out. We do all our learning watching Umop pull dave's arguments apart.

It's like watching a young de Sade have fun with bugs, tweezers and a magnifying glass.

[Faid]

Amazing. At this point, dave is so terrified of engaging Dean, that he prefers to post on the Peanut Gallery thread, although he knows his posts will be removed...

Or, perhaps, because he knows his posts will be removed. So he can safely retreat into his little fantasy world, where his "arguments" remain unrefuted, and he is triumphant over his opponents- as it should be.

Poor guy.

[SAWells]

Does this mean Dave has explicitly thrown the debate, by failing to answer umop's questions at all?

[Jet Black]

Does this mean Dave has explicitly thrown the debate, by failing to answer umop's questions at all?

perhaps a new tactic; run away and juts claim you have smashed your opponent's arguments to smithereens.

I found it really funny the way Dean went so rapidly from "someone who holds up his end of an argument" to being dishonst, as dave has claimed several times now. It took me ages, but Dean managed it in about two weeks.

[SAWells]

Incidentally, is there any actual Egyptian evidence that Rameses was ever shortened to Sessy as a diminutive? At the moment even that's unsupported. It's a bit like arguing that "if you turn Stephen into Pheny than Fenchurch Street Station must have been built by King Stephen".

[JonF]

Does this mean Dave has explicitly thrown the debate, by failing to answer umop's questions at all?

perhaps a new tactic; run away and juts claim you have smashed your opponent's arguments to smithereens.
That'a not new to Dave.

[Lucretius III]

Does this mean Dave has explicitly thrown the debate, by failing to answer umop's questions at all?

perhaps a new tactic; run away and juts claim you have smashed your opponent's arguments to smithereens.
That'a not new to Dave.

However the speed at which it has occured this time is new, he usually hangs about for much longer.

[VoxRat]

Does this mean Dave has explicitly thrown the debate, by failing to answer umop's questions at all?

perhaps a new tactic; run away and juts claim you have smashed your opponent's arguments to smithereens.

I found it really funny the way Dean went so rapidly from "someone who holds up his end of an argument" to being dishonst, as dave has claimed several times now. It took me ages, but Dean managed it in about two weeks.
I guess I can proudly claim to have been in that Hall of Fame for months - maybe years. Dave's been running around the internet calling me "dishonest", while opting not to support (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=80687#post80687) his libelous smears.

Meanwhile, this thread - or rather thread it's a peanut gallery for - pretty much size up the current situation with Rohl's theories. It's been 11 years since Rohl's book was published, and in the meantime neither he nor anyone else seems to have been able to add anything to the few self-contradictory scraps he scraped up suggesting that the "Old Chronology" was wrong, let alone any evidence that his "New Chronology" is right (which I remind our creationist friends is a separate question). Can we declare "case closed" at this point?

[VoxRat]

Here's another book by [ahem] "outside-the-box-thinking" "archeologists" that purports to re-align Egyptian history with the Bible:

Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline (http://www.amazon.com/Unwrapping-Pharaohs-Egyptian-Archaeology-Confirms/dp/0890514682/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220358973&sr=8-1).

This one was published in 2006.

Oh! And in Amazon.com's "Customers who bought this book also bought" heading, we have this one (http://www.amazon.com/World-History-Made-Simple-Matching/dp/0880620730/ref=pd_sim_b_1):

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-IHrzaagL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

It looks right up Dave's alley.

I wonder if he'd care to do a "book report" on either of these efforts for us?

[Occam's Aftershave]

Does this mean Dave has explicitly thrown the debate, by failing to answer umop's questions at all?

perhaps a new tactic; run away and juts claim you have smashed your opponent's arguments to smithereens.

I found it really funny the way Dean went so rapidly from "someone who holds up his end of an argument" to being dishonst, as dave has claimed several times now. It took me ages, but Dean managed it in about two weeks.
I guess I can proudly claim to have been in that Hall of Fame for months - maybe years. Dave's been running around the internet calling me "dishonest", while opting not to support (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=80687#post80687) his libelous smears.

Meanwhile, this thread - or rather thread it's a peanut gallery for - pretty much size up the current situation with Rohl's theories. It's been 11 years since Rohl's book was published, and in the meantime neither he nor anyone else seems to have been able to add anything to the few self-contradictory scraps he scraped up suggesting that the "Old Chronology" was wrong, let alone any evidence that his "New Chronology" is right (which I remind our creationist friends is a separate question). Can we declare "case closed" at this point?

Man, you guys are small potatoes. I got Hawkins to post a half page ranting diatribe about me personally on that shithole he calls a blog, :D:D:D

SPECIAL NOTE ON MY NEW FORMAL DEBATE & OCCAM’S AFTERSHAVE
I have just begun a new Formal Debate on the historical nature of the Book of Genesis over at IIDB. My debates seem to get plenty of interest (lots of negative comments mainly) and there are already comments being made in the Peanut Gallery (almost 1800 page views as of this writing). Most of the comments are fair, but there is one individual who I will highlight here since I do not have the opportunity to refute him in the same thread.

Occam’s Aftershave.

I have never know anyone to be such a blatant liar … and I have been debating at atheist forums for over a year now. Here’s one of his latest false accusations …

*snip the rest of Dave's hilarious foaming at the pie hole*

And no, I won't link to it. I refuse to give the lying turd any web hits. :p

[Jet Black]

Incidentally, is there any actual Egyptian evidence that Rameses was ever shortened to Sessy as a diminutive? At the moment even that's unsupported. It's a bit like arguing that "if you turn Stephen into Pheny than Fenchurch Street Station must have been built by King Stephen".

yes, I already posted this evidence.

[RAFH]

Incidentally, is there any actual Egyptian evidence that Rameses was ever shortened to Sessy as a diminutive? At the moment even that's unsupported. It's a bit like arguing that "if you turn Stephen into Pheny than Fenchurch Street Station must have been built by King Stephen".

yes, I already posted this evidence.

and you haven't linked to it nor are you going to explain where it is. At least I presume that's your line and that you are prepared to stick to it.

[Jet Black]

indeed it is.

anyway, I don't like umop anymore, he is obviously being dishonest since he keeps asking difficult questions.

[zagloba]

I finally got a clue about umop's avatar. "The League of Gentlemen," right?

[HoverCraftWheel]

I finally got a clue about umop's avatar. "The League of Gentlemen," right?

Correct.

the great Papa Lazarou. Rather scarily, the League claim that he's based on a real person!

Now is anyone brave enough to come up with an avatar of Tubbs suckling a piglet?

[umop apisdn w,I]

I finally got a clue about umop's avatar. "The League of Gentlemen," right?

Correct.

the great Papa Lazarou. Rather scarily, the League claim that he's based on a real person!

Now is anyone brave enough to come up with an avatar of Tubbs suckling a piglet?

Even more scarily, the Local Shop for Local People (and Tubbs) are based on a real shop about two miles from where I live...

[VoxRat]

I had never heard of this Papa Lazarou fellow so, naturally, I did a bit of Googling. I was intrigued to find (http://www.lofg.com/character_profile.php?profile_id=1) this little tidbit

Lazarou also has a fixation with calling people Dave, whether they were christened it or not! perhaps that was his mum's name.

[zagloba]

I finally got a clue about umop's avatar. "The League of Gentlemen," right?

Correct.

the great Papa Lazarou. Rather scarily, the League claim that he's based on a real person!

Now is anyone brave enough to come up with an avatar of Tubbs suckling a piglet?Or how about Harvey Pincher (Little Britain) nursing from Geraldine James?

[Lucretius III]

I had never heard of this Papa Lazarou fellow so, naturally, I did a bit of Googling. I was intrigued to find (http://www.lofg.com/character_profile.php?profile_id=1) this little tidbit

Lazarou also has a fixation with calling people Dave, whether they were christened it or not! perhaps that was his mum's name.


In reality Papa Lazarou is in fact Trigger's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_(Only_Fools_and_Horses)) Nothern cousin.

Many years ago one bloke in my local pub kept calling me "Dave" even though it isn't my name, I thought it was so funny I didn't bother to correct him for years.

[ericmurphy]

I find that when I'm explaining something to someone who is being particularly obtuse, I have a tendency to refer to him (or even her) as "Dave."

Habit, I guess.

[Lucretius III]

Looking into this Rohl chronology stuff I was shocked to find that his one time "partner in crime" Peter James graduated from my old Alma Mater Birmingham University in Ancient History and Archaeology,I can't actually find his graduation date but given the dates in the early '80s, when he first started writing this stuff ,there is every possibility I actually met him (and even worse a possibility I even did some of the same courses as him )

[Faid]

I find that when I'm explaining something to someone who is being particularly obtuse, I have a tendency to refer to him (or even her) as "Dave."

Habit, I guess.OMG you too?

[Gojira]

Hmm,

Has our pet creo executed a Brave Sir Robin Manoeuvre?

[Steviepinhead]

I find that when I'm explaining something to someone who is being particularly obtuse, I have a tendency to refer to him (or even her) as "Dave."

Habit, I guess.
:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Heh! I see Faid liked that, too. I knew there was something suspicious about that fellow's sense of humor...

[Nialler]

Umop destroyed Dave with elegant ease.

I've rarely seen such a one-sided "debate".

Had it been a boxing match I think I'd have turned away after the first few blows. In the end, all Dave had to offer were low blows and none of them landed either.

I particularly enjoyed Dave's concession that the timeline was being worked on and that soon they should have shaved it by the necessary 200 years that were needed to fit the theory. How's that for integrity?

[Lucretius III]

Umop destroyed Dave with elegant ease.

I've rarely seen such a one-sided "debate".

Had it been a boxing match I think I'd have turned away after the first few blows. In the end, all Dave had to offer were low blows and none of them landed either.

I particularly enjoyed Dave's concession that the timeline was being worked on and that soon they should have shaved it by the necessary 200 years that were needed to fit the theory. How's that for integrity?

Yes I liked that too
Basically if only they can find the "right facts & dates " to ignore then everything will be hunky dory :)

[Ray Moscow]

As a former Christian, I used to be surprised when these apologetic things didn't pan out and usually came up looking extremely lame.

Then I started finding them disappointing in their lameness.

Eventually I just came to expect them to be lame -- and am seldom surprised.

[Faid]

It's a shame dave chickened out and bailed so soon; I was hoping he would eventually explain, in more detail, why Dean was "dishonest" (and an unworthy scholar who should be stripped off his titles) for simply agreeing with the evidence we have...

While dave's 'honest' position was "There most certainly IS some evidence out there that supports Rohl's chronology, see, we just haven't found it yet".

What han I say, I'm an optimist by nature.

[Nialler]

Oh, he'll be back at some stage and will ignore the decomposing corpse in teh corner.

Indeed, he'll claim to have won the thing.

Umop's performance was clinical.

[Gregor]

Not to add to Umop's work load, but I learned so much through this, if he could post a "Reader's Digest" version of a closing statement, I'd appreciate it.

[Jet Black]

yes yes, let's have a useful summary of dave's position and how it has changed and contradicted itself over time. I always enjoy a useful summary.

[Faid]

The sad part is that dave logs in, checks this thread and the EE one, then quietly logs out again. He did it today as well.

So much for dave Hawkins, Amateur Scientific Journalist Extraordinaire, Champion of the Lord.

Sad.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

It seems as if even the apparently ineducable Hawkins has realized that his flailing about only makes his silly religiously based fantasies look... silly.

We can only hope that when he returns (as he must) that he will refrain from being such an amazingly unpleasant prick this time.

[Gojira]

^^^
Is that a whole squadron of attack pigs I can hear flying past? :wave:

[ninewands]

Dave wasn't so NASTY in the past. I think what DR. Inexplicable is referring to is that, while unpleasant, Dave wasn't such a vile, nasty person in the past. Okay, maybe I'll give you vile, but he has really turned nasty and hateful recently. Maybe it's frustration from having his "arguments" eviscerated so easily that it threatens his own perception of the validity of his worldview.

ETA: Hmmmmm ... Dr. Inexplicable ... has sort of a nice ring to it ... also reminds me of a chemistry prof I once had ...

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Dave wasn't so NASTY in the past. I think what DR. Inexplicable is referring to is that, while unpleasant, Dave wasn't such a vile, nasty person in the past. Okay, maybe I'll give you vile, but he has really turned nasty and hateful recently. Maybe it's frustration from having his "arguments" eviscerated so easily that it threatens his own perception of the validity of his worldview.

ETA: Hmmmmm ... Dr. Inexplicable ... has sort of a nice ring to it ... also reminds me of a chemistry prof I once had ...

:wave:

I think Hawkins 'jumped the shark' when he went after you, 9W.
That was inexcusable under any circumstance. It exposed what he really feels for anyone who contradicts his worldview.
From that point, it was just downhill to the point where he was calling for somebody's (?) credentials to be pulled because of his supposed 'dishonesty'.

There is a saying from Hawkins' purported religion that speaks of plucking the beam from one's own eye before complaining about the speck in another's eye. But, as we have come to see, Hawkins is not as Bible-Believing as he pretends to be. I wonder if his fellow parishioners are aware of his heretical streak?

[damitall]

Dave wasn't so NASTY in the past. I think what DR. Inexplicable is referring to is that, while unpleasant, Dave wasn't such a vile, nasty person in the past. Okay, maybe I'll give you vile, but he has really turned nasty and hateful recently. Maybe it's frustration from having his "arguments" eviscerated so easily that it threatens his own perception of the validity of his worldview.

ETA: Hmmmmm ... Dr. Inexplicable ... has sort of a nice ring to it ... also reminds me of a chemistry prof I once had ...

:wave:

I think Hawkins 'jumped the shark' when he went after you, 9W.
That was inexcusable under any circumstance. It exposed what he really feels for anyone who contradicts his worldview.
From that point, it was just downhill to the point where he was calling for somebody's (?) credentials to be pulled because of his supposed 'dishonesty'.

There is a saying from Hawkins' purported religion that speaks of plucking the beam from one's own eye before complaining about the speck in another's eye. But, as we have come to see, Hawkins is not as Bible-Believing as he pretends to be. I wonder if his fellow parishioners are aware of his heretical streak?

Oh, I think the man is a loner and kids himself he doesn't much care what anyone thinks of him.

I used to be somewhat like that until I realised that you can actually disagree with folk without alienating them, and that sometimes, I was actually wrong. I learned to be more honest with myself and with others- it felt good.

[David B]

Hey maybe - remote possibility that it is - he is actually reconsidering his position, realises that the bible is in fact errant, and that he has been led astray.

David B (rather hopes not, on the grounds that, IMV, he does more to aid the freethinking cause by being outside the tent pissing in than he is capable of doing being inside the tent, pissing out)

[Martin.au]

There is a saying from Hawkins' purported religion that speaks of plucking the beam from one's own eye before complaining about the speck in another's eye. But, as we have come to see, Hawkins is not as Bible-Believing as he pretends to be. I wonder if his fellow parishioners are aware of his heretical streak?

You know, completely off topic, but I really hate that saying. It's a shame the writers of the bibble couldn't think of a better analogy.

[Jet Black]

There is a saying from Hawkins' purported religion that speaks of plucking the beam from one's own eye before complaining about the speck in another's eye. But, as we have come to see, Hawkins is not as Bible-Believing as he pretends to be. I wonder if his fellow parishioners are aware of his heretical streak?

You know, completely off topic, but I really hate that saying. It's a shame the writers of the bibble couldn't think of a better analogy.

yeah, the bible would really benefit from sayings like

And Jesus said unto the pharisees, "here, have a nice big cup of STFU"

[Jet Black]

I think Hawkins 'jumped the shark' when he went after you, 9W.
That was inexcusable under any circumstance.


even the pope?

ok, yeah, even the pope.

[Faid]

Once again, dave logs in... dave checks the forums... dave quietly logs out.

I wish I could say it's funny, but really, it's not; it's somewhat depressing, in fact.

I kinda feel sorry for the guy.

[DrLight]

[QUOTE=VoxRat;149829]Here's another book by [ahem] "outside-the-box-thinking" "archeologists" that purports to re-align Egyptian history with the Bible:

Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline (http://www.amazon.com/Unwrapping-Pharaohs-Egyptian-Archaeology-Confirms/dp/0890514682/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220358973&sr=8-1).

This one was published in 2006.

I have a copy of that (alright I'm not proud of the fact) - it was bought during a sale at our local (since closed Xtian bookshop) I was actually looking for some anti-evolutionary apologetics, but they didn't have any.

[Jet Black]

I have a copy of that (alright I'm not proud of the fact) - it was bought during a sale at our local (since closed Xtian bookshop) I was actually looking for some anti-evolutionary apologetics, but they didn't have any.

that's in their under the counter stuff along with "porn for priests" and the "Katholik kannibal kult"

[Faid]

Hi, dave. With us once more, I see...

Hey, wait, don't go! Was it something I said? :'(

[BWE]

every day he checks in once or twice and stay a while to PM and read.

[Gregor]

And he checks in to start a new, insane thread at E & O with a SciFi question.

[Faid]

Well, dave returned to the forums, but obviously has no intention of returning to the EE thread.

Shall we declare Dean triumphant, grant him his honorary "Dave Heckler" membership (I'm sure dave has), and call it a day?

[VoxRat]

Well, dave returned to the forums, but obviously has no intention of returning to the EE thread.

Shall we declare Dean triumphant, grant him his honorary "Dave Heckler" membership (I'm sure dave has), and call it a day?
Well, now... be fair.
Dave has a lot on his plate. Not only does he have to show how all of archeology is wrong, he has to show how all science is wrong, he's pretty sure he's discovered a cure for cancer and he's doing some in-depth research to shore that up, AND he has to prepare his lessons, teaching all this stuff to his Sunday School class.

[Lucretius III]

Well, dave returned to the forums, but obviously has no intention of returning to the EE thread.

Shall we declare Dean triumphant, grant him his honorary "Dave Heckler" membership (I'm sure dave has), and call it a day?
Well, now... be fair.
Dave has a lot on his plate. Not only does he have to show how all of archeology is wrong, he has to show how all science is wrong, he's pretty sure he's discovered a cure for cancer and he's doing some in-depth research to shore that up, AND he has to prepare his lessons, teaching all this stuff to his Sunday School class.

You forgot linguistics as well :D

[Faid]

Since Dean and dave are both here, how about resuming the discussion? It was quite interesting. I'd also like to hear dave explain how those copper mines fit into it all.

(and carbon dating, of course)

[Faid]

...But I guess I won't.