Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

Please explain:

1) Why you think pestering someone with an off-topic question is okay; and

2) Why you think them refusing to let you dictate to them reflects badly upon them?

Thanks,

Pahoran

I will say this... in Wade's defense... I came back into this thread late in a discussion between frank_jessop and Wade regarding this question.

Since the OP dealt with horse bones and dating I assumed, wrongly, that Wade had engaged on that topic. But in looking back, before I re-entered this thread it seems frank jessop's question came out of the blue to Wade and Wade was just talking about invites to the youth meeting or something.

So I'll back of my pestering since it appears he was never here to discuss that in the first place and doesn't care to discuss that.

I lay down my semantic joust and would rather enjoy the post-joust refreshments with everyone now.

Link to comment

Please explain:

1) Why you think pestering someone with an off-topic question is okay; and

2) Why you think them refusing to let you dictate to them reflects badly upon them?

Thanks,

Pahoran

In case you did not notice, Bcspace - creator of this thread - outlined what he deemed on topic for the thread.

horse discovered in the Americas which are C14 to the time of Christ is, according to the creator of this a topic of discussion that is on topic.

Are you aware of any evidence that supports the claim that horse bones discovered in the Americas have been C14 dated to the time of Christ? Just to be clear, I am not suggesting you made the claim.

Link to comment

This is a demonstrably false assertion. Science uses an "absence of evidence" to disprove hypotheses fairly consistently. That's how science works.

 

That is not how science works.  All science can say is that we have no evidence of such.  It cannot conclusively state that, because of a lack of evidence, such does not exist.  The typical example being Troy, which was thought to be mythical...until it was discovered.

Edited by BCSpace
Link to comment

In case you did not notice, Bcspace - creator of this thread - outlined what he deemed on topic for the thread.

horse discovered in the Americas which are C14 to the time of Christ is, according to the creator of this a topic of discussion that is on topic.

Are you aware of any evidence that supports the claim that horse bones discovered in the Americas have been C14 dated to the time of Christ? Just to be clear, I am not suggesting you made the claim.

Having read the OP, I'm of the view that the topic was Daniel Peterson's good performance in the face of an anti-Mormon ambush.

I'm not presently interested in discussing archaeology, paleontology or dating methods. On some other occasion I might be, but this is not that occasion.

That is your answer. If you know what good manners are, you will not ask again.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Having read the OP, I'm of the view that the topic was Daniel Peterson's good performance in the face of an anti-Mormon ambush.

I'm not presently interested in discussing archaeology, paleontology or dating methods. On some other occasion I might be, but this is not that occasion.

That is your answer. If you know what good manners are, you will not ask again.

Regards,

Pahoran

I didn't ask if you were interested, I asked if you knew of evidence. The good manner thing to do would have been to answer the question asked; a "Yes" or "No" would have answered the question asked.

Though it is apparent no one is interested in backing up the claim that horse bones discovered in the Americas have been C14 dated to the time of Christ.

(I wonder if you understand the irony of you talking about good manners.)

Edited by frank_jessop
Link to comment

I didn't ask if you were interested, I asked if you knew of evidence. The good manner thing to do would have been to answer the question asked; a "Yes" or "No" would have answered the question asked.

So, let me get this straight:

Despite the fact that (1) I did not raise the subject and (2) I have not addressed the subject, your choice to ask me a question about it somehow obligates me to enter into a discussion on the terms that you dictate.

How does that work, exactly?

Just how important do you think you are?

I'm sorry Frankie, but you're not as important as you think you are.

But don't be disheartened; after all, nobody's as important as you think you are.

Okay, since you insist, I will address this subject exactly once.

Here is the statement that Dan actually made:

"There have been horse bones found that have been dated to Book of Mormon times, for example."

He said nothing about C-14 dating. You made that up.

You are beating up a straw man.

 

Though it is apparent no one is interested in backing up the claim that horse bones discovered in the Americas have been C14 dated to the time of Christ.

Since that's not actually the claim that was made, I'm afraid this is a rather hollow victory.

But since that's the only kind you anti-Mormons are going to get, I hope you enjoy it.

And that is all I have to say on the subject of horse bones.

Kindly refrain from pestering me any farther on the matter.

 

(I wonder if you understand the irony of you talking about good manners.)

I wonder if you understand the irony of you commenting on anyone else's good manners.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

So, let me get this straight:

Despite the fact that (1) I did not raise the subject and (2) I have not addressed the subject, your choice to ask me a question about it somehow obligates me to enter into a discussion on the terms that you dictate.

How does that work, exactly?

Just how important do you think you are?

I'm sorry Frankie, but you're not as important as you think you are.

But don't be disheartened; after all, nobody's as important as you think you are.

Okay, since you insist, I will address this subject exactly once.

Here is the statement that Dan actually made:

"There have been horse bones found that have been dated to Book of Mormon times, for example."

He said nothing about C-14 dating. You made that up.

You are beating up a straw man.

 

Since that's not actually the claim that was made, I'm afraid this is a rather hollow victory.

But since that's the only kind you anti-Mormons are going to get, I hope you enjoy it.

And that is all I have to say on the subject of horse bones.

Kindly refrain from pestering me any farther on the matter.

Well, you are partly correct and you are clearly wrong.

At 0:23 Peterson states that horse bones have been found that have been dated to Book of Mormon times, for example.

At 3:10 Peterson states "one is simply that there is Carbon-14 data, evidence, for horse bones during the time of Christ, in the Americas"

I wonder if you understand the irony of you commenting on anyone else's good manners.

Regards,

Pahoran

I knew you would fail to see the irony in you attempting to instruct on "good manners".

Just curious what makes me an anti-mormon? Am I anti-mormon because I accept that a N Eldon Tanner quote about blacks and the priesthood reflected the current position of the Church in 1967? Or an I anti-mormon for wanting someone to substantiate their claims?

Edited by frank_jessop
Link to comment

That is not how science works.  All science can say is that we have no evidence of such.  It cannot conclusively state that, because of a lack of evidence, such does not exist.  The typical example being Troy, which was thought to be mythical...until it was discovered.

 

I clearly articulated how the scientific process uses an absence of evidence to disprove hypotheses. Please show me where I'm wrong rather than just asserting it. Troy is an invalid comparison. Troy was a city thought to be mythological surrounded by actual myth. I'm not sure I even see what comparison you are seeking to draw. With the BOM, we're not just missing a city, we're missing entire populations. We're missing many species of animals, plants, industry, technology, representations in art etc. 

Link to comment

The question was this "do you know of any evidence of horse bones dated to BOM times"

What part of that have you answered?

 

The question has actually been asked in several different ways, but the part that I have answered was the part that speaks to whether I made the claim in question and whether I think the question is relevant to coming to Christ and becoming like him. Obviously.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

I could understand your "nuanced" response if you answer was: "I don't think it's pertinent to coming to Christ so I choose not to answer the question."

 

You have my sympathies for your comprehension limitations.

 

I think he's just toying with you now.  It seems obvious that he doesn't have "evidence of horse bones dated to BOM times".  Many have asked him if he does and he just avoids giving a direct answer. If I were you, I'd drop it and assume that his non-answer is an answer.

 

No, I am not toying with him. I am being repetitive in hopes that he will at some point be able to surmount his comprehension limitations.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

Okay, since you insist, I will address this subject exactly once.

Here is the statement that Dan actually made:

"There have been horse bones found that have been dated to Book of Mormon times, for example."

He said nothing about C-14 dating. You made that up.

You are beating up a straw man.

 

What?!

 

I know I bowed out, and I know you said you'd address this only once, but I have to correct this.  I don't know which section you are referring to but THIS "is the statement that Dan actually made" pulled from the 2nd video at 3:05

 

For example, on the matter of horses.  There are two possible explanations, I hear laughter at both of them, but they are both actually stronger than they sound, one is simply that there is Carbon-14 data, evidence, for horse bones during the time of Christ, in the Americas.

 

So... I hope you just aren't "making up" a quote Dan made but instead are pulling from a different source.  Was this a quote from this thread?  On his blog?  Because in the video he did say something about Carbon-14, Frank didn't make it up, he wasn't making a straw man.

 

I chalk this up to Dan having to make off-the-cuff remarks to this guy and wasn't fully prepared since he's already said, in this thread, he could have said stuff better.  Could he go back he'd probably say the quote you quoted him saying.  Unless of course there is C-14 data, which is why the questioning has come up in the first place.

 

I had to go back and watch the video again just to make sure I wasn't going crazy... and geez... the questioner is so obnoxious.  His insistence of 99.9% of science and blah blah is so infuriating.  It's so clear his agenda and his own feeling on the matter, and then he throws in the "this is just what my mom tells me."  Really low class act.

Edited by Brian 2.0
Link to comment

Opps, that is an embarrassing mistake on my part; as to "time of christ" and "c14 dated". Thank you for pointing that out.

I can not explain the mistake as to "book of mormon times" verse "time of Christ". But as to the "dated" and "C14 dated", that would explained by presuming that accepted dating for our times is C14 dating and not relying exclusively on strata layers. My apologies for those mistakes. Thank you for the correction.

 

 

No need to be embarrassed.  You weren't mistaken on this one.

Link to comment

I realize now that he doesn't have any sources or evidence. I just don't understand why he wouldn't just simply say that. I only have so much time to be on here and I love honest, direct answers (many could use calmoriah as an example as she is so helpful). I do understand though that some like to joke around and I assume that's what wenglund was probably doing.

 

I realize that some people are locked into interacting on their own terms and accepting only what they demand of others, and if they don't get what they want in the way they want it, they jump to a series of unwarranted conclusions.

 

Hopefully, some day they may grow up and recognize that the world doesn't revolve around them, and that reasonable dialog entails mutual give and take and intelligently working with people in terms they respectively choose to offer.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

"I just don't understand why he wouldn't just simply say that."

 

this type of exchange is less about fact finding than the joust of semantics.  You watch some guys get knocked off their horse a few times too many ... and then you go home.

 

It is amusing to see some people boast in their unwitting cluelessness. They falsely assume they are observing semantic jousting, and then end up going home before discovering that it was really a charitable attempt to pry open closed minds to different perspectives and dimensions. Oh well....

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Stop the continual rudeness. You and Pahoran are skating on thin ice.

Link to comment

It is amusing to see some people boast in their unwitting cluelessness. They falsely assume they are observing semantic jousting, and then end up going home before discovering that it was really a charitable attempt to pry open closed minds to different perspectives and dimensions. Oh well....

 

I'm glad to be wrong, given the way you exude charity ("It is amusing to see some people boast in their unwitting cluelessness").

Link to comment

So... I hope you just aren't "making up" a quote Dan made but instead are pulling from a different source.  Was this a quote from this thread?  On his blog?  Because in the video he did say something about Carbon-14, Frank didn't make it up, he wasn't making a straw man.

Okay, I was referring to what Dan said at 0:25. I missed the bit at 3:05.

My (limited) apologies to Frank.

Limited to thinking he had read something into Dan's dialogue that wasn't there.

I don't apologise for refusing to be baited into a subject I have no particular interest in; nor for taking him to task for harassing selected posters about that subject.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Okay, I was referring to what Dan said at 0:25. I missed the bit at 3:05.

My (limited) apologies to Frank.

Limited to thinking he had read something into Dan's dialogue that wasn't there.

I don't apologise for refusing to be baited into a subject I have no particular interest in; nor for taking him to task for harassing selected posters about that subject.

Regards,

Pahoran

Funny, I missed the 0:25 part when I watched it. I was so annoyed by the questioner that I didn't notice Dan got in a couple words there before Mike continuined his rant.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Does anyone else find it interesting that these kind of attempts to "embarrass apologetics" are inevitably based on deception, dishonesty, and manipulation?  Reminds me so much of Jews who tried to embarrass Christ with misleading questions when he was mortal.

Link to comment

Does anyone else find it interesting that these kind of attempts to "embarrass apologetics" are inevitably based on deception, dishonesty, and manipulation? Reminds me so much of Jews who tried to embarrass Christ with misleading questions when he was mortal.

I wouldn't even approach a scriptural comparison for incident. Much less, give the questioner the privilege of being compared to the questioners of Christ's day.

In my opinion the videos show the questioner is too fond of his own voice to ask a difficult question in coherent manner that makes the question difficult to address.

I also wouldn't say the videos show that anyone ripped "it up".

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...