Post by ignorantianescia on Aug 17, 2013 15:49:12 GMT
Apologies for this rant, though two links given should make up for it.
In mid June, a student in Semitic languages wrote an interesting post on his visit to the notorious Creation Museum. If you read it, you will be treated to an entertaining series of mistakes that AiG bungled (from using the Aramaic derived sqaure script to arguing that a saraph in a single instance in Isaiah is a pterodactyl), followed up by either fully argued debunkings or useful references.
This post got some of Crocoduck Dandy's crewmates in a less than spiffing mood so they put up a reply. It is also interesting in its own supercilious way, as an object of study for how to argue without engaging with arguments. Instead they discredited the work of Robert Holmstedt on Genesis 1: 1, claiming against it that Gen 1: 1 does argue for an absolute beginning.
In turn, that post prompted a response from prof. Holmstedt, who didn't have much to reply to in AiG's post, but still gave some useful links, including this one.
Any thoughts on the matter?
In mid June, a student in Semitic languages wrote an interesting post on his visit to the notorious Creation Museum. If you read it, you will be treated to an entertaining series of mistakes that AiG bungled (from using the Aramaic derived sqaure script to arguing that a saraph in a single instance in Isaiah is a pterodactyl), followed up by either fully argued debunkings or useful references.
This post got some of Crocoduck Dandy's crewmates in a less than spiffing mood so they put up a reply. It is also interesting in its own supercilious way, as an object of study for how to argue without engaging with arguments. Instead they discredited the work of Robert Holmstedt on Genesis 1: 1, claiming against it that Gen 1: 1 does argue for an absolute beginning.
In turn, that post prompted a response from prof. Holmstedt, who didn't have much to reply to in AiG's post, but still gave some useful links, including this one.
Any thoughts on the matter?
