|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: Strong words, but Alford was not my, but lyx's link. I merely responded to items in that link, as a negation of it. It was whose link????????? You quoted Alford, linked to his web page, and you don't even know that you did? See a Doctor, Joseph. This is serious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Your getting hysterical. You accused me of lieing and my link was not of a scientist by any imagination:
quote: But I quoted also Chompsky? I did not refer to the other link - the link from inx sounded like the same author, but those names do not have any meaning to me, as I have never heard of them - it was what they said which mattered. Thus there was no lie - only your focusing on the irrelevent in hysterical mode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
So what is your reasoning we have not a single name recallable from 6001 years - just a co-incidence with genesis? No kings, wars, nations, cities, wheels, dieties, populations - nothingness pre-6000, just alledged fossil imprints for 100s of 1000s of years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Joseph writes: Your getting hysterical. You accused me of lieing and my link was not of a scientist by any imagination: I'm laughing at you Joe, not hysterical. What you said was that you had quoted only scientists. In fact, you quoted a non-scientist talking about things he had little understanding of, and describing the views of two scientists in ways that were misleading. You obviously understood nothing of your own "source", which didn't back your views, anyway. Now you say:
But I quoted also Chompsky? No, you didn't quote Chompsky, whoever he is. Neither did you quote Chomsky. You quoted an accountant talking about him. Honestly, Joe, you have no idea what you're talking about. Listen to yourself:
I did not refer to the other link - the link from inx sounded like the same author, but those names do not have any meaning to me, as I have never heard of them - it was what they said which mattered. That's why the title here is "one lunatic quotes another". There's no point in quoting stuff just because it's on the Web. That guy's an alien nutter, and you're a God nutter, so you've got nothing in common, except, I suppose, that you both make up your own worlds.
Thus there was no lie - only your focusing on the irrelevent in hysterical mode. You may find it irrelevant when I point out the mistakes that show everyone that you don't know your arse from your elbow when it comes to science (or reality, for that matter). But I find it funny, and if you keep on posting rubbish, I'll keep on pointing it out. Stop making a fool of yourself, Joe, and go away and learn something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: So? It was an article which contained that quotation, if your inference is the accountant is also lieing? You seem to not like chompside, because you don't agree with his other theories. But he is the world expert in speech history, which I acknowledge even though I don't appreciate him far more than you do. Let the message be more important than the messenger here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No takers. Obviously, this is a scary proposition for some.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: So? It was an article which contained that quotation, if your inference is the accountant is also lieing? The accountant doesn't quote Chomsky. How old will you be, Joseph, before you learn what quotation means.
Let the message be more important than the messenger here. The message that speech may have arrived via genetic drift or as a by-product of selection for other advantageous characteristics, rather than having been selected for itself? It's unlikely, but what makes you think that that would be a problem for evolutionary biology? Why don't you write to Chomsky and tell him about your 6,000 year old human speech hypothesis if you think he's the world's leading expert. That should give him a good laugh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Evolution is based on periodical, transit developments - and no such imprints exist. There are no graduating elevations of speech [else we would have a name; but speech occured suddenly and in an already advanced state]; no graduating populations and mental prowess stages. And why should humans, the last and most recent life form, beat millions of older species with this most powerful of all adaptive traits? Whu is it that we can only nominate a name, the true and only evidence of speech, only inside the 6000 circle, but never seen precisely and exactly outside the 6000 year point and only within it - what happened to the previous million years of evolution? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: I dare you to start a thread, WHAT IF SPEECH IS EXACTLY 6000 YEARS OLD? You should play devil's advocate - just to enumerate the havoc it creates. I mean, what if genesis is right? It's impossible to play devil's advocate for it, emptyhead. There's no evidence for the proposition, and plenty against it. I've already explained this to you months ago when you were expressing a similar delusion. It would require a schizophrenic to seriously advocate such an idea. So start your thread. And you can "enumerate the havoc" yourself. (1 havoc, 2 havocs, 3 havocs, 4...).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: Evolution is based on periodical, transit developments - and no such imprints exist. That sentence means nothing. You're going to have to learn to speak English properly if you want to discuss complex subjects.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: Just give a 'NAME' of anyone older than 6000? For the second time of asking: Eridu.
wiki says writes: Eridu appears to be the earliest settlement in the region, founded ca. 5400 BC There is your name. Edited by Larni, : No reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So what is your reasoning we have not a single name recallable from 6001 years - just a co-incidence with genesis? No kings, wars, nations, cities, wheels, dieties, populations - nothingness pre-6000, just alledged fossil imprints for 100s of 1000s of years?
Your insistance on "a name" from prior to 6,000 years ago seems to be an attempt to "prove" young earth and genesis through one of the silliest examples I have ever seen. (By the way, I notice a name from hundreds of years earlier was provided to you in a previous post. If you are honest you will concede this point.) Your "no kings, wars, nations, cities, wheels, dieties, populations - nothingness pre-6000" is either a lie or evidence that you are delusional. I deal with archaeological sites and I have evidence from my own work of a lot of things "pre-6000" -- and my colleagues around the world have a lot more such evidence. For you to claim that it does not exist says a lot more about you than it does archaeological evidence. If you are trying to convince others of your views you are in fact doing the opposite. A serious question: Why are you making such vacuous claims? Are you witnessing, and getting spiritual points for presenting your religious views to non-believers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Larni writes: Eridu. Strange, because guess where I saw that name recently? http://EvC Forum: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? -->EvC Forum: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? Where IaJ unwittingly linked to an alien loony site: http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/human_origins/article3.html Eridu.co.uk Which led me to post this: http://EvC Forum: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? -->EvC Forum: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? Strange, eh? Must be the hand of the intelligent designer involved somewhere. {ABE} Enki came before Eridu, because he built it. Edited by bluegenes, : marked addition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Enki's always been my favourite Anunnaki, imagine being a god of semen? Lol. I bet Enil took the piss out of him: that's probably why Enki twarted so many of his plans. The Sumerian Mythos is pretty out there, isn't it? I love the way it predates and pre-empts the xian mythos, too. Edited by Larni, : Smuggness
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Joseph,
You obviously do not understand Science or History. Edited by Force, : grammar Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024