What Is Your Position, Keyes?
Farrell Till
>> KEYES
>> This is a complete misrepresentation of Anderson's position taken out
>> of context. Anderson fully admits that the dates do not match up based
>> on astronomical accuracy. This is the very basis of his theory.
>>
<SNIP>
TILL
It's time for you to explain yourself, Keyes, because we have reached a
point where nobody understands what the hell your position is. Each time
you have been proven wrong, you have moved the goalposts. You started out
claiming that Anderson's dates were Julian March 14, 445 BC, and Julian
April 6, AD 32, and that there were exactly 173,880 days between those two
dates. You adamantly insisted that those dates CANNOT BE CHANGED.
When everything began to fall apart for you when undeniable evidence was
presented that there were in fact 173,883 days between Anderson's two dates,
you moved the goalposts and said that no one disagreed that there were
173,883 days between the dates but (1) God would never have made the mistake
of using a calendar that contained the leap-year mistake in the Julian, (2)
Anderson's intention was to "match the solar season," (3) when the days
between the two dates "equalivant" [sic] to the solar season were counted,
there were only 173,880, (4) counting only the days "equalivant" [sic] to
matching the solar seasons somehow made Julian April 6th, AD 32, Julian
April 3rd. So suddenly the end date that CANNOT BE CHANGED was changed BY
YOU, and now that Malcolm has shown that Anderson's own statements require
you to admit that he meant that April 6, AD 32, was April 6, AD 32, and
could not have been April 3rd, you have moved the goal posts again and are
now claiming that March 14, 445 BC, may not have been March 14, 445 BC.
So just what the hell is your position, Keyes. State it clearly so that we
will know what you are claiming. In a debate, the one who affirms has the
responsibility to state his position in a precisely worded proposition and
to define the key terms so that the audience will understand exactly what
the issue is.
It's time for you to do that. What is your position? State it in a
precisely worded proposition and then define the key terms.
RESOLVED: ............................
Now fill in the blank. Exactly what have you resolved and are prepared to
defend?
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jft...@midwest.net
Steve Gray
wrote:
>So just what the hell is your position, Keyes. State it clearly so that we
>will know what you are claiming. In a debate, the one who affirms has the
>responsibility to state his position in a precisely worded proposition and
>to define the key terms so that the audience will understand exactly what
>the issue is.
>
>It's time for you to do that. What is your position? State it in a
>precisely worded proposition and then define the key terms.
>
>RESOLVED: ............................
>
>Now fill in the blank. Exactly what have you resolved and are prepared to
>defend?
>
GRAY:
I don't think Don can or will do this, so I will try.
RESOLVED: There were a certain exact number of days calculated by
someone named Anderson, who was or was not qualified to make correct
calculations, between two events, neither of whose dates is known and
neither of which may have actually happened. The interval between
these two possible events either does or does not depend on some leap
years. The interval either does or does not involve two calendars.
Year synchronization of these calendars either does or does not
matter. In case Anderson was wrong, this resolution is about something
else. In case I (Keyes) was wrong, it's Anderson's fault. But
everything is really your (Till's) fault because you are confusing me
with facts and expert opinions. In any event although my claims are
becoming more and more meaningless I will NEVER give up, because
giving up might mean giving up.
Now, Till, try and refute that!