At 03:34 PM 12/29/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>At 03:03 PM 12/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>Niels I recognize an appeal to authority when I see one. If you have not
>>noticed my primary acedemic training was in mathematics, and quite frankly
>>your arguments here are foolish in the extreme.
>You lost me here. There was no appeal to authority- only a request that you
>read something that is already available. I dont think that is too much
to ask.
Then look it up in any elementary logic book. They are available. :)
>And, by the way, training in mathematics doesnt make one any more fit for
>biblical studies questions than training in biblical studies makes one a
>mathematician.
It teaches one to recognize when someone who is arguing is bluffing and is
using assumptions that are really assertions.
>>I have a great deal of
>>respect for some of what you have said, but quite frankly your answers have
>>been lacking. I have pointed out specific questions as to why other methods
>>are not applied here. Ken gave a good example (probably better then I could
>>without spending some time at it.) We are dealing with the scientific
>>method of gaining knowledge which has little to do with the numbe ror years
>>of publications one has. I don't think anything I asked was too complex. I
>>didn't ask for the solution to the 4 color problem, or Fermet last theorem.
>But what you have asked for is already available.
Although both of the above needed to be solved with computers and were over
a thousand pages long, the problem can be explained and the answer given in
a short paragraph requiring no knowledge of algebraic topology (4 color
problem) or number theory (Fermet.) BTW if I was to give you a text that
avctually discussed the issues I serious doubt if you would understand it.
BUT they could be easily explained. (If you wish I will.)