Backyard Science

[_dartagnan]

Well, it is official. The discussion died because Bill Hamblin refused to own up to his mistakes and ran off, while Kerry is deleting posts and doing the usual clean up after these apologetic trainwrecks. This, after hyping the discussion as though Hamblin was going to "mop the floors" with me.

Good thing I kept copies of the discussion. Here is the last post he deleted:

Kerry: So, I figured that was your methodology.

I’m doubtful you know what the word “methodology” means.

Kerry: Based on your complete lack of comprehension of my own podcast on the Archaeology of God

I comprehended as much as I could listen to. It has been called “unlistenable” elsewhere, and I must say I agree.

You misused Smith to support a Mormon theme, pretending he would agree with your contention that God’s attributes could be “proved” simply by reading the texts at Ugarit. Absurd. If you think this is such a scholarly podcast, then write up a paper and try presenting it in a scholarly forum.

Kerry: it doesn't surprise me that you make so many silly errors of judgement about everyone else's ideas.

I have not made any silly errors of “judgment,” including misspelling the word. I judged correctly in that Bill is being misleading in his interview. Jihad as a militant duty is the traditional understanding in Islam; it is not something created by recent events in the Middle East. Jews and Christians under Islamic rule could not “do whatever they wanted” as Bill stated. These are two irrefutable facts and Bill knows this. He presents himself as an authority on the history so he should be held accountable for his goofs.

Kerry: It works best if you know what your talking about before you talk, and you will avoid many foolish errors you let fly all over the internet.

Unfortunately for you, it has not been demonstrated that I don’t know what I am talking about. It is just a comfortable assumption.

Kerry: Just one note, you can spout, spit, and pout all your vituperous and mean attitude on other areas, as is your chosen method of communication, but keep it civil here, or I will be editing out your snideness. It's simply not welcome on my blog, though discussions are always welcome.

What irony. Your rant above was nothing but a “snide” attack on me, with no attempt to “discuss” anything.

Kerry: But of course you think so, nothing like self-congratulations is there

I am congratulated by Dan and Bill whenever they flee the scene every time I point out their errors. People, who do not venerate them as apologetic icons, see this as well.

Kerry: My leaving your messages essentially up and in tact solidly, and I mean SOLIDLY refute your lame view here. Duh.

But we all know that the threat to “remove snideness” is just code for “remove refutations we don’t like.” Or at least that is always how it works at MAD.

Kerry: No, I am the one who keeps reprimanding you there because I am not particularly keen on visiting boards designed just for whining, like those you create and inhabit.

But you do post there, so who do you think you are kidding?

Kerry: I used Biblical scholars and archaeologists and their translations. Refute it. You talk to Mark Smith, ask him if I mis-read his translation.

That was never the issue, but nice attempt to wiggle away from it. The issue is whether this “proves” God has a penis. Smith says no.

Kerry: Gee, I thought for someone who is so powerfully well read and researched as you keep claiming you are, would have known about these sources. Are you so averse to learning if the knowledge doesn't fit your paradigm that you make fun of it instead of learn from it? How revealing........

Not only am I familiar with these sources, but I know how not to look foolish by misusing them to “prove” Mormon themes. I read this many years ago when the book first came out, and I remember thinking to myself that some reckless apologist is going to jump all over this and embarrass us all.

Kerry: I am looking forward to seeing Hamblin mop the floor with you.

So am I, but it looks like your hero has disappointed us by pulling a Dan Peterson.

Kerry: Mine already has Kevin.

You think a couple of apologetic articles for FARMS proves your method is scholarly? Please Kerry.

Kerry: They have asked me for help also, congratulations for being so important. Big deal.

You’re the one who attacked my method and research skills. I simply noted that more than a few scholars have expressed their appreciation for my research skills. In other words, I proved you wrong.

Kerry: The difference between us is I don't whine about everything I disagree with as you do Kevin.

Like what? So much for avoiding “snideness” I guess.

Kerry: And your study of anthropomorphisms are hardly exhaustive

Then please point to a study that is more detailed. It is by far the most exhaustive apologetic on the subject anywhere. Barry Bickmore even emailed me and complemented me for using several sources he never knew about.

[_Kevin Graham]

bump

[_Blixa]

Good God, Kevin. Did you have to bump this thread? Something about the title seemed very familiar; turns out this is one of the first, if not the first, thread I posted on here.

Thus something has come full circle. Sadly, I think this speaks less of completion and more of plain ol' rut.