An Invitation to Theists to Demonstrate The Distinction Between Those Parts of the Bible Which are Prehistorical as Opposed to Those Parts Which are Supposedly Historical.
Budikka666
http://tinyurl.com/yeyu3hg
and others, Dopey Duke has repeatedly maintained that the period prior
to Abram is "prehistoric" and therefore should be taken with a grain
of salt, whereas from Abram onwards, it's all historical. He's
specifically mentioned that Genesis chapters 1 - 11 are in the
"prehistory" category, even though there's no difference in reading
the Bible from chapter 11 of Genesis to chapter 12. Nothing changes -
not the language, not the overall story, not the words - nothing at
all. The generations are listed consecutively and continue unbroken
from one to the next, yet Dopey Duke insists that up to 11 it's
prehistory, and can't be used to establish anything, whereas after 11
it's all history. Well here's his chance to support that claim.
Let's sit back and watch him squirm, equivocate, dance around, avoid,
toss out inane straw men and make excuses. I predict that he will not
offer a shred of objective support for his claim, but that he'll take
the cowardly and vacuous route of insisting that *we* do the work
necessary to support *his* claim rather than he himself support the
claim *he's* made! Let's see, shall we?
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>In this thread:
>http://tinyurl.com/yeyu3hg
>and others, Dopey Duke has repeatedly maintained that the period prior
>to Abram is "prehistoric" and therefore should be taken with a grain
>of salt, whereas from Abram onwards, it's all historical. He's
>specifically mentioned that Genesis chapters 1 - 11 are in the
>"prehistory" category, even though there's no difference in reading
>the Bible from chapter 11 of Genesis to chapter 12. Nothing changes -
>not the language, not the overall story, not the words - nothing at
>all.
Do you understand the concept of historical, dumbass dud?
> The generations are listed consecutively and continue unbroken
>from one to the next, yet Dopey Duke insists that up to 11 it's
>prehistory, and can't be used to establish anything, whereas after 11
>it's all history. Well here's his chance to support that claim.
Try google, dud. The question marks on the prehistory of Genesis 1-11 are
everywhere. No matter how hard you try, the historicy of an event can't be
established with information in serious doubt of accuracy.
>Let's sit back and watch him squirm, equivocate, dance around, avoid,
>toss out inane straw men and make excuses. I predict that he will not
>offer a shred of objective support for his claim, but that he'll take
>the cowardly and vacuous route of insisting that *we* do the work
>necessary to support *his* claim rather than he himself support the
>claim *he's* made! Let's see, shall we?
>
>Budikka
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Trance Gemini
<snipped>
> Try google, dud. The question marks on the prehistory of Genesis 1-11 are
> everywhere. No matter how hard you try, the historicy of an event can't be
> established with information in serious doubt of accuracy.
Main Entry: pre·his·tor·ic
Pronunciation: \ˌprē-(h)is-ˈtȯr-ik, -ˈtär-\
Variant(s): also pre·his·tor·i·cal \-i-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1851
1 : of, relating to, or existing in times antedating written history
Given that the Bible is written that makes it either historic or a
mythology.
Unless you can demonstrate that it's historically accurate, it is a
mythology until proven otherwise.
"Prehistorical" isn't a factor here unless you don't understand what
the word means or you are claiming that the events occurred previous
to the writings, in which case you have to demonstrate that they
occurred and when they occurred and why only part of Genesis would be
prehistorical and the rest written at the same time the events
occurred.
Good luck with that one.
<snipped>
Budikka666
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:23:49 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In this thread:
> >http://tinyurl.com/yeyu3hg
> >and others, Dopey Duke has repeatedly maintained that the period prior
> >to Abram is "prehistoric" and therefore should be taken with a grain
> >of salt, whereas from Abram onwards, it's all historical. He's
> >specifically mentioned that Genesis chapters 1 - 11 are in the
> >"prehistory" category, even though there's no difference in reading
> >the Bible from chapter 11 of Genesis to chapter 12. Nothing changes -
> >not the language, not the overall story, not the words - nothing at
> >all.
>
> Do you understand the concept of historical, dumbass dud?
Everyone does but you. That's the point of this thread. And here you
are, instead of supporting your claims, you're RUNNING from them. How
sad is that?
> > The generations are listed consecutively and continue unbroken
> >from one to the next, yet Dopey Duke insists that up to 11 it's
> >prehistory, and can't be used to establish anything, whereas after 11
> >it's all history. Well here's his chance to support that claim.
>
> Try google, dud. The question marks on the prehistory of Genesis 1-11 are
> everywhere. No matter how hard you try, the historicy of an event can't be
> established with information in serious doubt of accuracy.
You made the claim, not Google. It's up to you to support it, not
Google. You either support it with objective references or you're
openly and unconditionally admitting right here in public world-wide
on Usenet that you're full of shit. That's all there is to it. I
know what my money's on.
> >Let's sit back and watch him squirm, equivocate, dance around, avoid,
> >toss out inane straw men and make excuses. I predict that he will not
> >offer a shred of objective support for his claim, but that he'll take
> >the cowardly and vacuous route of insisting that *we* do the work
> >necessary to support *his* claim rather than he himself support the
> >claim *he's* made! Let's see, shall we?
As you can see, my predictions above were right on the money as
usual. I own Duck-Egg Doofus Duke. I know him better than he knows
himself. I know *exactly* what he's going to do, to say, and to
think.
Straight answer from Dipshit Duke? No way in Hell! Dirtbag Duke
support his assertion? No way in hell! Duped offer references? No
way in Hell! Desperate Duke offer objective support for his claim?
No way in Hell! Disappearing Duke offer scientific support for his
claim? No way in Hell!
All we ever get from Duck Egg is an endless blind-faith chanting of
his "Not Historic" mantra, which this thread was opened *precisely* to
address! So even when I tackle a subject that *he* raised, and offer
to discuss it in detail with him, what does he do? HE RUNS AWAY FROM
THE TOPIC!
What a worthless piece of shit Duke proves to be - again.
Well you have one last chance, Ditch-Deep Dumb Duke to dispense with
the big fat duck-egg you've laid so far, and actually present some
objective support for your claim: That parts of the Bible are
prehistoric, and that Genesis chapter 11 is the boundary between
what's historical (gen 12 onwards) and what's prehistorical (Gen 1 -
11), giving *special* *attention* to accounting for the *continuous*
*unbroken* genealogy from Adam through Jesus Christ, if part of the
Bible is historical and the rest is fiction.
Don't expect anyone here to run around doing your job for you.
**YOU** made the claim, no one else here. No one else here has to
support it - **YOU** do. **YOU** made it, **YOU** support it or it's
an outright LIE. That's all there is to it. This is your last
chance. It's your choice Fail to support it and you're admitting YOU
LIED. Make your choice Doofus.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 21, 7:15�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:23:49 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In this thread:
>> >http://tinyurl.com/yeyu3hg
>> >and others, Dopey Duke has repeatedly maintained that the period prior
>> >to Abram is "prehistoric" and therefore should be taken with a grain
>> >of salt, whereas from Abram onwards, it's all historical. �He's
>> >specifically mentioned that Genesis chapters 1 - 11 are in the
>> >"prehistory" category, even though there's no difference in reading
>> >the Bible from chapter 11 of Genesis to chapter 12. �Nothing changes -
>> >not the language, not the overall story, not the words - nothing at
>> >all.
>>
>> Do you understand the concept of historical, dumbass dud?
>
>Everyone does but you. That's the point of this thread. And here you
>are, instead of supporting your claims, you're RUNNING from them. How
>sad is that?
Gotcha, dud. Historical is historical.
>> > The generations are listed consecutively and continue unbroken
>> >from one to the next, yet Dopey Duke insists that up to 11 it's
>> >prehistory, and can't be used to establish anything, whereas after 11
>> >it's all history. �Well here's his chance to support that claim.
>>
>> Try google, dud. �The question marks on the prehistory of Genesis 1-11 are
>> everywhere. �No matter how hard you try, the historicy of an event can't be
>> established with information in serious doubt of accuracy.
>You made the claim, not Google.
Google shows you the big question of it's historicy.
>> >Let's sit back and watch him squirm, equivocate, dance around, avoid,
>> >toss out inane straw men and make excuses. �I predict that he will not
>> >offer a shred of objective support for his claim, but that he'll take
>> >the cowardly and vacuous route of insisting that *we* do the work
>> >necessary to support *his* claim rather than he himself support the
>> >claim *he's* made! �Let's see, shall we?
>As you can see, my predictions above were right on the money as
>usual. I own Duck-Egg Doofus Duke.
I have you sucked right in on part 1.
>Straight answer from Dipshit Duke? No way in Hell! Dirtbag Duke
>support his assertion? No way in hell! Duped offer references? No
>way in Hell! Desperate Duke offer objective support for his claim?
>No way in Hell! Disappearing Duke offer scientific support for his
>claim? No way in Hell!
Ah yesssssss, hmmmmmm, ohhhhhhhhhhh, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
>All we ever get from Duck Egg is an endless blind-faith chanting of
>his "Not Historic" mantra, which this thread was opened *precisely* to
>address! So even when I tackle a subject that *he* raised, and offer
>to discuss it in detail with him, what does he do? HE RUNS AWAY FROM
>THE TOPIC!
>
>What a worthless piece of shit Duke proves to be - again.
>Well you have one last chance, Ditch-Deep Dumb Duke to dispense with
>the big fat duck-egg you've laid so far,
Victory is sweet.
> and actually present some
>objective support for your claim: That parts of the Bible are
>prehistoric, and that Genesis chapter 11 is the boundary between
>what's historical (gen 12 onwards) and what's prehistorical (Gen 1 -
>11), giving *special* *attention* to accounting for the *continuous*
>*unbroken* genealogy from Adam through Jesus Christ, if part of the
>Bible is historical and the rest is fiction.
Why do you think it's "fiction"?
>Don't expect anyone here to run around doing your job for you.
>**YOU** made the claim, no one else here. No one else here has to
>support it - **YOU** do. **YOU** made it, **YOU** support it or it's
>an outright LIE. That's all there is to it. This is your last
>chance. It's your choice Fail to support it and you're admitting YOU
>LIED. Make your choice Doofus.
>Budikka
Explain this "fiction" idea to me.
duke
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 21, 8:15�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>> Try google, dud. �The question marks on the prehistory of Genesis 1-11 are
>> everywhere. �No matter how hard you try, the historicy of an event can't be
>> established with information in serious doubt of accuracy.
>Main Entry: pre�his�tor�ic
>Pronunciation: \?pr?-(h)is-?to?r-ik, -?t�r-\
>Variant(s): also pre�his�tor�i�cal \-i-k?l\
>Function: adjective
>Date: 1851
>1 : of, relating to, or existing in times antedating written history
>Given that the Bible is written that makes it either historic or a
>mythology.
>Unless you can demonstrate that it's historically accurate, it is a
>mythology until proven otherwise.
>"Prehistorical" isn't a factor here unless you don't understand what
>the word means or you are claiming that the events occurred previous
>to the writings, in which case you have to demonstrate that they
>occurred and when they occurred and why only part of Genesis would be
>prehistorical and the rest written at the same time the events
>occurred.
>Good luck with that one.
Done.
Budikka666
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:30:12 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 21, 7:15 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:23:49 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >In this thread:
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/yeyu3hg
> >> >and others, Dopey Duke has repeatedly maintained that the period prior
> >> >to Abram is "prehistoric" and therefore should be taken with a grain
> >> >of salt, whereas from Abram onwards, it's all historical. He's
> >> >specifically mentioned that Genesis chapters 1 - 11 are in the
> >> >"prehistory" category, even though there's no difference in reading
> >> >the Bible from chapter 11 of Genesis to chapter 12. Nothing changes -
> >> >not the language, not the overall story, not the words - nothing at
> >> >all.
>
> >> Do you understand the concept of historical, dumbass dud?
>
> >Everyone does but you. That's the point of this thread. And here you
> >are, instead of supporting your claims, you're RUNNING from them. How
> >sad is that?
>
> Gotcha, dud. Historical is historical.
No explanation here from you as to what exactly it is between Genesis
chapters 11 and 12 which makes the former prehistory, and therefore,
according to you, totally worthless, and the latter history and
therefore - according to you, utterly reliable. Let's pres son and
see if you ever get around to answering or if you're simply using this
opportunity to once again demonstrate your facility for dancing around
things. Remember your choice: Fail to support it and you're admitting
YOU LIED.
> >> > The generations are listed consecutively and continue unbroken
> >> >from one to the next, yet Dopey Duke insists that up to 11 it's
> >> >prehistory, and can't be used to establish anything, whereas after 11
> >> >it's all history. Well here's his chance to support that claim.
>
> >> Try google, dud. The question marks on the prehistory of Genesis 1-11 are
> >> everywhere. No matter how hard you try, the historicy of an event can't be
> >> established with information in serious doubt of accuracy.
> >You made the claim, not Google.
>
> Google shows you the big question of it's historicy.
No explanation here from you as to what exactly it is between Genesis
chapters 11 and 12 which makes the former prehistory, and therefore,
according to you, totally worthless, and the latter history and
therefore - according to you, utterly reliable. Let's pres son and
see if you ever get around to answering or if you're simply using this
opportunity to once again demonstrate your facility for dancing around
things. Remember your choice: Fail to support it and you're admitting
YOU LIED.
> >> >Let's sit back and watch him squirm, equivocate, dance around, avoid,
> >> >toss out inane straw men and make excuses. I predict that he will not
> >> >offer a shred of objective support for his claim, but that he'll take
> >> >the cowardly and vacuous route of insisting that *we* do the work
> >> >necessary to support *his* claim rather than he himself support the
> >> >claim *he's* made! Let's see, shall we?
> >As you can see, my predictions above were right on the money as
> >usual. I own Duck-Egg Doofus Duke.
>
> I have you sucked right in on part 1.
No explanation here from you as to what exactly it is between Genesis
chapters 11 and 12 which makes the former prehistory, and therefore,
according to you, totally worthless, and the latter history and
therefore - according to you, utterly reliable. Let's pres son and
see if you ever get around to answering or if you're simply using this
opportunity to once again demonstrate your facility for dancing around
things. Remember your choice: Fail to support it and you're admitting
YOU LIED.
> >Straight answer from Dipshit Duke? No way in Hell! Dirtbag Duke
> >support his assertion? No way in hell! Duped offer references? No
> >way in Hell! Desperate Duke offer objective support for his claim?
> >No way in Hell! Disappearing Duke offer scientific support for his
> >claim? No way in Hell!
>
> Ah yesssssss, hmmmmmm, ohhhhhhhhhhh, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
No explanation here from you as to what exactly it is between Genesis
chapters 11 and 12 which makes the former prehistory, and therefore,
according to you, totally worthless, and the latter history and
therefore - according to you, utterly reliable. Let's pres son and
see if you ever get around to answering or if you're simply using this
opportunity to once again demonstrate your facility for dancing around
things. Remember your choice: Fail to support it and you're admitting
YOU LIED.
> >All we ever get from Duck Egg is an endless blind-faith chanting of
> >his "Not Historic" mantra, which this thread was opened *precisely* to
> >address! So even when I tackle a subject that *he* raised, and offer
> >to discuss it in detail with him, what does he do? HE RUNS AWAY FROM
> >THE TOPIC!
>
> >What a worthless piece of shit Duke proves to be - again.
> >Well you have one last chance, Ditch-Deep Dumb Duke to dispense with
> >the big fat duck-egg you've laid so far,
>
> Victory is sweet.
No explanation here from you as to what exactly it is between Genesis
chapters 11 and 12 which makes the former prehistory, and therefore,
according to you, totally worthless, and the latter history and
therefore - according to you, utterly reliable. Let's pres son and
see if you ever get around to answering or if you're simply using this
opportunity to once again demonstrate your facility for dancing around
things. Remember your choice: Fail to support it and you're admitting
YOU LIED.
> > and actually present some
> >objective support for your claim: That parts of the Bible are
> >prehistoric, and that Genesis chapter 11 is the boundary between
> >what's historical (gen 12 onwards) and what's prehistorical (Gen 1 -
> >11), giving *special* *attention* to accounting for the *continuous*
> >*unbroken* genealogy from Adam through Jesus Christ, if part of the
> >Bible is historical and the rest is fiction.
>
> Why do you think it's "fiction"?
No explanation here from you as to what exactly it is between Genesis
chapters 11 and 12 which makes the former prehistory, and therefore,
according to you, totally worthless, and the latter history and
therefore - according to you, utterly reliable. Let's pres son and
see if you ever get around to answering or if you're simply using this
opportunity to once again demonstrate your facility for dancing around
things. Remember your choice: Fail to support it and you're admitting
YOU LIED.
> >Don't expect anyone here to run around doing your job for you.
> >**YOU** made the claim, no one else here. No one else here has to
> >support it - **YOU** do. **YOU** made it, **YOU** support it or it's
> >an outright LIE. That's all there is to it. This is your last
> >chance. It's your choice Fail to support it and you're admitting YOU
> >LIED. Make your choice Doofus.
> >Budikka
>
> Explain this "fiction" idea to me.
No explanation here from you as to what exactly it is between Genesis
chapters 11 and 12 which makes the former prehistory, and therefore,
according to you, totally worthless, and the latter history and
therefore - according to you, utterly reliable. Let's pres son and
see if you ever get around to answering or if you're simply using this
opportunity to once again demonstrate your facility for dancing around
things. Remember your choice: Fail to support it and you're admitting
YOU LIED.
Since you've had your last chance and been too cowardly, hypocritical
and vacuous to support your claim that Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory,
your claim is hereby admitted **BY** **YOU** to have been nothing but
a LIE. This topic is closed.
Back to kicking your cowardly ass on the flood.
Budikka
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:30:12 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 21, 7:15�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:23:49 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >> <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In this thread:
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/yeyu3hg
> >> >and others, Dopey Duke has repeatedly maintained that the period prior
> >> >to Abram is "prehistoric" and therefore should be taken with a grain
> >> >of salt, whereas from Abram onwards, it's all historical. �He's
> >> >specifically mentioned that Genesis chapters 1 - 11 are in the
> >> >"prehistory" category, even though there's no difference in reading
> >> >the Bible from chapter 11 of Genesis to chapter 12. �Nothing changes -
> >> >not the language, not the overall story, not the words - nothing at
> >> >all.
> >>
> >> Do you understand the concept of historical, dumbass dud?
> >
> >Everyone does but you. That's the point of this thread. And here you
> >are, instead of supporting your claims, you're RUNNING from them. How
> >sad is that?
>
> Gotcha, dud. Historical is historical.
The point that Duke the puke keeps trying to ignore is that such
self-contradictions as even he admits occur in his allegedly god given
book, makes his alleged god capable of error and his book less than
reliable.
>
> >> > The generations are listed consecutively and continue unbroken
> >> >from one to the next, yet Dopey Duke insists that up to 11 it's
> >> >prehistory, and can't be used to establish anything, whereas after 11
> >> >it's all history. �Well here's his chance to support that claim.
> >>
> >> Try google, dud. �The question marks on the prehistory of Genesis 1-11 are
> >> everywhere. �No matter how hard you try, the historicy of an event can't
> >> be
> >> established with information in serious doubt of accuracy.
It is that "serious doubt of accuracy" in a book allegedly "inspired by
GOD" that makes that god's power seem to be fallible.
>
> >You made the claim, not Google.
>
> Google shows you the big question of it's historicy.
History be damned! The point that Duke the puke keeps trying to ignore
is that such self-contradictions as even he admits occur in his
allegedly god given book, makes his alleged god capable of error and his
book less than reliable.
>
> >> >Let's sit back and watch him squirm, equivocate, dance around, avoid,
> >> >toss out inane straw men and make excuses. �I predict that he will not
> >> >offer a shred of objective support for his claim, but that he'll take
> >> >the cowardly and vacuous route of insisting that *we* do the work
> >> >necessary to support *his* claim rather than he himself support the
> >> >claim *he's* made! �Let's see, shall we?
>
> >As you can see, my predictions above were right on the money as
> >usual. I own Duck-Egg Doofus Duke.
>
> I have you sucked right in on part 1.
Duke's qualifications at sucking are not the issue.
>
> >Straight answer from Dipshit Duke? No way in Hell! Dirtbag Duke
> >support his assertion? No way in hell! Duped offer references? No
> >way in Hell! Desperate Duke offer objective support for his claim?
> >No way in Hell! Disappearing Duke offer scientific support for his
> >claim? No way in Hell!
>
> Ah yesssssss, hmmmmmm, ohhhhhhhhhhh, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Sounds like Duke is sucking again!
>
> >All we ever get from Duck Egg is an endless blind-faith chanting of
> >his "Not Historic" mantra, which this thread was opened *precisely* to
> >address! So even when I tackle a subject that *he* raised, and offer
> >to discuss it in detail with him, what does he do? HE RUNS AWAY FROM
> >THE TOPIC!
> >
> >What a worthless piece of shit Duke proves to be - again.
>
> >Well you have one last chance, Ditch-Deep Dumb Duke to dispense with
> >the big fat duck-egg you've laid so far,
>
> Victory is sweet.
Sounds like Duke is sucking again!
>
> > and actually present some
> >objective support for your claim: That parts of the Bible are
> >prehistoric, and that Genesis chapter 11 is the boundary between
> >what's historical (gen 12 onwards) and what's prehistorical (Gen 1 -
> >11), giving *special* *attention* to accounting for the *continuous*
> >*unbroken* genealogy from Adam through Jesus Christ, if part of the
> >Bible is historical and the rest is fiction.
>
> Why do you think it's "fiction"?
You admitted that parts of it were not fact, so that it is either
fiction or lies.
>
> >Don't expect anyone here to run around doing your job for you.
> >**YOU** made the claim, no one else here. No one else here has to
> >support it - **YOU** do. **YOU** made it, **YOU** support it or it's
> >an outright LIE. That's all there is to it. This is your last
> >chance. It's your choice Fail to support it and you're admitting YOU
> >LIED. Make your choice Doofus.
> >Budikka
>
> Explain this "fiction" idea to me.
Hans Christian Anderson"s stories are fiction.
Like those known to be false bible tales, they are only intended to
amuse and entertain without deceiving.
duke
wrote:
>> >> Do you understand the concept of historical, dumbass dud?
>> >Everyone does but you. �That's the point of this thread. �And here you
>> >are, instead of supporting your claims, you're RUNNING from them. �How
>> >sad is that?
>> Gotcha, dud. �Historical is historical. �
>No explanation here from you as to what exactly it is between Genesis
>chapters 11 and 12 which makes the former prehistory, and therefore,
>according to you, totally worthless, and the latter history and
>therefore - according to you, utterly reliable.
Wow, what hole did you dig out a statement by me that says Gen 12+ is fully
completely scientific and/or historical?
>> >> Try google, dud. �The question marks on the prehistory of Genesis 1-11 are
>> >> everywhere. �No matter how hard you try, the historicy of an event can't be
>> >> established with information in serious doubt of accuracy.
>> >You made the claim, not Google. �
>> Google shows you the big question of it's historicy.
>No explanation here from you as to what exactly it is between Genesis
>chapters 11 and 12 which makes the former prehistory
The experts call it prehistory. Why should I be the one to support that idea?
>> >Straight answer from Dipshit Duke? �No way in Hell! �Dirtbag Duke
>> >support his assertion? �No way in hell! �Duped offer references? �No
>> >way in Hell! �Desperate Duke offer objective support for his claim?
>> >No way in Hell! �Disappearing Duke offer scientific support for his
>> >claim? �No way in Hell!
>> Ah yesssssss, hmmmmmm, ohhhhhhhhhhh, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
>No explanation here from you as to what exactly it is between Genesis
>chapters 11 and 12 which makes the former prehistory
The experts have covered that one.
>Since you've had your last chance and been too cowardly, hypocritical
>and vacuous to support your claim that Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory,
>your claim is hereby admitted **BY** **YOU** to have been nothing but
>a LIE. This topic is closed.
Heeheeheeheehee. Dud, you're a joke.