Droopy wrote:Daniel Peterson has no personal knowledge whether the full story is publicly known.
And you know this how?
By Peterson's own admission.
But in any case, you are not qualified to comment on any of it sans a PhD in Egyptology.
Nor do you have such a PhD, which makes your entire point here moot.
The logical aspect of your case here is frail, both because not having a formal degree implies nothing regarding actual knowledge, and because, lacking such a degree yourself, you yourself are in no position to determine what what the requirements are to understand apologetic arguments containing Egyptology elements.
The bare fact that Gee has written a great deal for a mass audience who do not have degrees in Egyptology regarding apologetic subjects related to Egyptology (through FARMS and NMI) levels your entire facile appeal to credentialism (a version of the appeal to snobbery fallacy, I'd say) to the ground.
So Bill Hamblin is wrong, and one does not need an advanced degree in a relevant field to evaluate the merits of apologetic arguments.
Thanks for sharing, Droopy.