Apologetics

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 09:01 AM 7/14/98 PDT, David Conklin wrote:

CARR

>Once upon a time, an Emperor wanted new clothes made.

>Some tailors said thay had very expensive, very fine cloth which only

>really clever and wise people could see.

>

>Not wanting to look a fool, the Emperor said that he could see the

>clothes the tailors had made for him. His courtiers also said that they

>could see the clothes.

>

>The day of the parade arrived. The Emperor rode down the street, totally

>naked, and all the people said 'What fine clothes he is wearing'. But

>one little boy said 'Mummy, he isn't wearing any clothes'.

>

>And he was told 'This is just an argument from silence. Abscence of

>evidence is not evidence of abscence'. And they all lived happily ever 

>after.

>

>DJC

>Notice how Carr mixes up the argument "from" silence with the argument 

>"of" silence in the last paragraph.

>


TILL
Conklin's point here is dubious at best, but has anyone noticed how silent
Conklin has become about the authorship of the book of Daniel?  He jumped
into this topic with gusto, bragging about how he had ripped William
Sierichs to pieces in a 59-page exchange and assuring everyone that he was
also going to show us a thing or two, but after getting his hide nailed to
the wall on several key points, he has suddenly become conspicuously silent.

I will renew again my challenge to debate this issue in a formal written
debate that I will agree to publish and distribute.  Is Conklin going to accept?



Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• Previous message: Apologetics
• Next message: Errancy and atheism require religious faith?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]