Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 233 of 305 (432412)
11-05-2007 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by bluescat48
11-05-2007 8:44 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
How can Genesis show ToE is faulty when it is mythological & has no scientific info at all?
This has been responded to previously. The creation chapter is not mythical, and does not mention any head-bashing dieties battling for supremecy - it mentions Creationism and monotheism, which are logical premises without any alternatives evidenced by science or elsewhere. Thereafter, it mentions only imperical entities like light, water, stars, the moon, reproduction, and all categories of life forms. Genesis makes declarations, and these require scientific justification, same as does any historical or geographical declaration. Genesis has not erred or been disproven of any of its stats. Why is it mythical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by bluescat48, posted 11-05-2007 8:44 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2007 10:33 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 235 by bluescat48, posted 11-05-2007 10:50 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 236 of 305 (432431)
11-06-2007 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by crashfrog
11-05-2007 10:33 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
Why do you say that, when genesis 1 and 2 are both written in a style of Hebrew poetry used to indicate mythical events?
Like "Once upon a time" in English literature, Genesis 1 and 2 contain phrases that, to the intended audience, clearly indicate that the narrative is mythical. What leads you to believe that genesis is not mythical when it's written to indicate that it is?
Examine instead your own mythical premise here, and what is disregarded: that this is the first alphabetical book, with a continuous, multi-page narrative which never existed before. Poetry, english, and once a upon a time, are relatively recent items, while Genesis is written in the new grammar delivery. The correct aim being to apply to all generations - which it succeeds in, and is the world's most widely harkened document, its majestic prose used by the greatest writers and thinkers, its ownership faught over by both christianity and islam.
While all forms of literary factors are introduced here, such as expressionism, analogy, metophor, anagrams, poetry - the texts are not mythical or naive, but pristine and exacting, speaking about the loftiest subjects: only the most appropriate nouns, adjectives and adverbs are employed, enabling the shortest distance between two points. It performs this with the least number of alphabets [22], which incorporates numerals in them; thus the first scientific cencus, with sub-totals of age and gender, backed by affirming sum totals, in the millions, is seen for the first time. Controversial issues such as incest and beastiality, which have never been confronted before, are dealt with in the most proper manner, dispensing them in a few, pristine words - enhancing the power of speech and writings for all future generations.
All laws, bar none, the world accepts in their institutions, have come from here - exclusively; how is this possible? Not a single worldly law comes from any other theology or philosophy till today. If in doubt, name one law the world accepts, and is not contained in the 613 OT laws? Historically, a host of cultures, nations, countries, kings and events are mentioned which knowledge is not available elsewhere; 3000 year historical figures, such as King david, are scientifically proven - while we cannot do the same for 2000 and 1500 year figures. This is not myth but factual, and thus the premises what contradicts ToE cannot be taken lightly, or dismissed as generic myth: there is no equavalence of this document anyplace, and is a mystery. It has to be responded to scientifically, addressing each exacting word as one would MC2 or any mathematical equation. This is seen when examined, making the texts deceptively simple.
As science and math are closely associated, one can discern the power of the OT texts via maths. The five books cover a period of some 3000 years, from Adam to Moses, and is interspersed with 1000s of dates and numbers, covering the ages and life spans of 1000s of figures, with dob and dod's. Here, any error in a single instant, can be easily picked out, making it open to ridicule. But there is not a single error in the maths. The Ten Commandments were given on a specific known date, celebrated each year in Judaism. The day of this event is also known, and this is a Saturday. Here, the text says, 'REMEMBER THIS DAY AS THE SABBATH. *THIS DAY* infact was the sabbath, illustrating the exactitude of its texts, and this can be checked by accounting the entire dates and numbers against the Hebrew calendar. This is math prowess at its highest point, and not seen in any other document, nor in any theology - which are usually devoid of specific dates.
i don't pose this theologically [I'm not religious], but as a mysterious document. That there are some FX miracles also listed should not be confused with its historical and imperical sectors. if it was myth, this would be borne out without any exertion, in its historical, mathematical and scientific positations. This has never occured. toE will not survive if it cannot prove itself against this document: because the first description of the universe emergence, and Creationism, came from here. I say, prove ToE here, but w/o referring to generic theology, because there are awesome discrepensies between christianity and islam's interpretation of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2007 10:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Larni, posted 11-06-2007 9:12 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2007 2:07 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 237 of 305 (432432)
11-06-2007 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by bluescat48
11-05-2007 10:50 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
Because the buck stopped with Monotheism, a premise also in alignment with science, math and logic. This was a difference in kind, not degree. Many wars were faught over it, many nations rebelled and then fell, but this concept prevailed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by bluescat48, posted 11-05-2007 10:50 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by anglagard, posted 11-06-2007 1:44 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 239 by sidelined, posted 11-06-2007 2:12 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 240 of 305 (432439)
11-06-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by anglagard
11-06-2007 1:44 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
You will find, that all those respected religions also uphold Monotheism when examined and deliberated further. This is true also of all other religions, with one source underlying all intermediatary thresolds of belief. It is also true with those beliefs which are not Creator inclined, and atheism as well: whatever their directed source, or its absence, concludes in ONE.
Monotheism appears a commonsense premise today, but it was akin to today's MC2 or QM some 4000 years ago, with charges of heresy, unpartiotism, enemy, criminal, sorcery, etc, with the penalty of death of the entire household: it required great compulsion in an ancient period. Abraham had to flee for his and his family's life, in a far worse scenario than with Geleleo 3,500 years later. Israel was destroyed by Rome, and exiled to Europe 2000 years ago for the same reason. Monotheism changed the universe for humanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by anglagard, posted 11-06-2007 1:44 AM anglagard has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 241 of 305 (432442)
11-06-2007 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by sidelined
11-06-2007 2:12 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
Oh really? Since when do logic, math and science postulate the existence of an omnipotent entity that cannot be seen ,heard, touch, smelled or tasted or be shown to follow rigorously from first principles in a way that is compelling beyond reasonable rebuttal?
4000 years ago. For the first time, dieties which can be seen and heard by the senses were overturned. Its a scientific premise: when one believes in a Creator - or any underlying control source, or even the lack of it - that source has to be, at least, transcendent of what is universe contained. Think about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by sidelined, posted 11-06-2007 2:12 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by sidelined, posted 11-06-2007 12:50 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 242 of 305 (432443)
11-06-2007 3:15 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
Q: Aside from the internal factors which illustrate how life forms graduade, what is the source believed by evolutionists, which controls evolution? Is this seen as occuring of and by itself, in evolvements of complexities fron randomity, in grads, and this caused by what is aka 'NATURE'? And what exactly is this thing called 'nature' - is this a force driven without a driver, and knows where to go by itself - based on what scientific premise?
When discussing evolution, which is presented as a naturally occuring process [read, no need to explain it], applying itself in mid-point [no background is provided], and after the fact of life is already emergent - it is good to delve further and away from the internal factors focused only on its process. The premise that evolution does not discuss how life formed, or what evolution really is - aside from what it does as per ToE, is insufficient for its credibility and veracity.
I see no possibility of truth or logic in the acceptence that only the process of what occurs to life, after life has appeared, as a sufficient acceptance by evolutionists. It requires total expounding. Thus far, all evolutionists have done as a response, is bash creationism: this is insufficient and not one which vindicates.
The deflection to other faculties like cosmology is unacceptable, aside from showing a lack of knowledge in biology itself: after all, the universe is an intergrated system, and not really sectionised as biology and cosmology sectors.
The first applicable factor here is: is evolution a universal constant? Are its features universal factors, such as adaptation and speciation: would organism learn to adapt to other conditions outside earth; would viruses on pluto evolve to zebras and humans, or similar life forms? Yes/no; why yes/no?
Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by DrJones*, posted 11-06-2007 4:41 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 245 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 5:54 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 247 by CK, posted 11-06-2007 7:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 244 of 305 (432454)
11-06-2007 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by DrJones*
11-06-2007 4:41 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
quote:
No, because the conditions on Pluto are drastically different from the conditions on Earth.
So *Adaptation* works only on harsh earthly conditions!?
Are you really comfortable with that, and does it mean it is thereby not possible for life to exist, emerge or evolve elsewhere [different conditions], or do you mean, other reasonably similar to earth conditions would surely result in life? I mean, the premise of adaptation has to have some substance, else it becomes superfluous, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the term describing it.
Further, what enables the virus or inanimate products to appreciate which is the right conditions: they must be able to see both and differenciate? If the conditions are not right in Pluto, can they see that in another galaxy the right conditions prevail, and would they mirgrate there, as do birds and animals here?
However one answers those questions, it appears encumbent there must be a hovering control or brain centroid which allows or facilitates the actions occuring; or else free floating particles have inherent abilities to perform this task - which is the same thing in the sense it is an independent, external controll mechanism operative here? Otherwise, in the absence of any explanation, it does not sound very imperical and scientific, and shows no requirement on ToE adherants to justify the basis of ToE's underlying principles.
Based on your response, we have adaptation being reduced to a limited and conditional adaptation, despite that there is a claim it functions here in almost any adverse conditions, even in volcanic cores and oceanic pressure at the sea bed. it does not function in other harsh conditions, and it is also subject to time factors, which make their manifestation in any generation examining it impossible. its not the minutae factors of how a virus evolves via dna to a retro virus - these have no shortage of answers; it is the hovering principle of ToE which requires evidencing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by DrJones*, posted 11-06-2007 4:41 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by CK, posted 11-06-2007 7:31 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 261 by DrJones*, posted 11-06-2007 2:46 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 246 of 305 (432459)
11-06-2007 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2007 5:54 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
quote:
N - A - T - U - R - A - L frickin' S - E - L - E - C - T - I - O - N.
Your imperical proof? Else, how do you know so? And is this a universal premise?
quote:
Why should we "read" a true statement as an utterly false one?
To find out if it is true.
quote:
No. Humans and zebras did not evolve from viruses.
That's cheating. Yourself.
blue marbles come from red marbles, red marbles come from blue and yellow marbles, yellow marbles come from green, yellow and black marbles with green dots in them. They all come from marbles when you track them all down.
I don't see anything existing or real called NS - except as a placebo for the inexplicable. i wonder where this term would fit in Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 5:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2007 7:14 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-07-2007 12:29 PM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 249 of 305 (432467)
11-06-2007 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by CK
11-06-2007 7:13 AM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pluto's atmosphere consists of a thin envelope of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide, derived from the ices on its surface.[44] As Pluto moves away from the Sun, its atmosphere gradually freezes and falls to the ground. As it edges closer to the Sun, the temperature of Pluto's solid surface increases, causing the ices to sublimate into gas. This creates an anti-greenhouse effect; much like sweat cools the body as it evaporates from the surface of the skin, this sublimation has a cooling effect on the surface of Pluto. Scientists have recently discovered,[45] by use of the Submillimeter Array, that Pluto's temperature is 10 kelvins colder than expected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you expect something in those conditions to evolve to look like a zebra or a human?
I can just see some viruses going YUMMY! As I said, adaptation and NS are very selective and moody critters - they seem to only like one planet, and one cuisine, which makes the terms adaptation and NS very dubious here. I agree, gravity, as other factors would apply - if one subscribes to the principle, which I do not: its unscientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by CK, posted 11-06-2007 7:13 AM CK has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 251 of 305 (432469)
11-06-2007 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Archer Opteryx
11-06-2007 7:14 AM


Re: THIS TITLE IS IN ALL CAPS
Point taken. But it does look like zebras come from viruses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2007 7:14 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 257 of 305 (432526)
11-06-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by sidelined
11-06-2007 12:50 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
4000 years ago. For the first time, dieties which can be seen and heard by the senses were overturned.
Please show us where you have evidence of this.
The source is the OT, which introduced monotheism. Abraham was 4000 years old; some of the laws were already given here [eg: circumsizion; ONE GD; etc], which is 400 years before Moses.
quote:
Its a scientific premise: when one believes in a Creator - or any underlying control source, or even the lack of it - that source has to be, at least, transcendent of what is universe contained.
Why is this the case? Please clarify this statement. Thank you.
What I mean is, ultimately there is one source as far as origin ['first'] goes, and this applies to everything and all views. And whatever one believes or accepts as the creator of the universe - that source should be transcendent to the creation. This may appear to reverse evolution, which says growth comes by evolvement, as opposed the original source being the transcendent factor to all its subsequence. But this premise is based on a random growth with no origin or source or controller or control factor at the helm, which creationism rejects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by sidelined, posted 11-06-2007 12:50 PM sidelined has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 259 of 305 (432534)
11-06-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Larni
11-06-2007 9:12 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
You do realise that the Epic of Gilgemesh is older? As is the Decent of Inanna.
Yes, for sure. The epic is not a book but a manuscript found in Persia, but subscribed as babylonian, and it is not in alphabetical script, as is the hebrew. The hamurabi docs dating is in dispute, and it has no surrounding evidence to affirm its date. However, lets give it the benefit of the doubt: it contains some laws which parallel the OT, and this is fine in such a case, because it can also serve as an affirmation of the flood, and that some of the OT laws were already in existence. Abraham appeared some 1600 years after Babylon, and the OT acts as a validation of which laws are correct and which were not, and thus the incorrect laws were discarded. It is harder to correct, than to study and understand MC2.
quote:
This may sound familia:
The Flood .
. .
Thus was treated .
Then did Nintu weep like a .
The pure Inanna set up a lament for its people,
Enki took counsel with himself,
An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag . ,
The gods of heaven and earth uttered the name of An and Enlil.
Then did Ziusudra, the king, the pashishu of . ,
Build a giant . ;
Humbly, obediently, reverently he . ,
. the gods a wall .
Ziusudra, standing at its side, listened.
“Stand by the wall at my left side . ,
By the wall I will say a word to you, take my word,
Give ear to my instructions:
By our . a flood will sweep over the cult centers;
To destroy the seed of mankind .
Is the decision, the word of the assembly of the gods.
By the word commanded by An and Enlil .
Its kingship, its rule (will be put to an end).”
(“History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-nine Firsts In Recorded History” by Samuel Noah Kramer pg 151-152 © 1981 University of Pennsylvania Press)
Ziusudra - The Sumerian "Noah"
I know it well. It contains plural gods, and head bashing dieties which was not seen in the OT, while it also contained advanced laws for humanity, which are contained in the OT. This, and the pyramids, shows there is wisdom in all nations, extending to India and China; the OT may not be the first source for all good laws, but it is the most comprehensive set of laws, all of which are world accepted; its transcendence is in disregarding incorrect laws, while affirming correct laws, and also supplying 100s of new laws which never existed before, including monotheism, democracy, inalien human rights, equal rights for rich or poor, animal rights laws, environment laws, contractual and copyright laws, superannuation and welfare laws, etc.
quote:
Even if Moses did write the Pentateuch he wrote it in a post Abrahamic time.
Correct. But he wrote it retroepctively, going well before Abraham. It contains archeologically authentic contemporary names, diets and places some 2000 years prior to Abraham, which is a point of mystery for me. These are not made up names later, and includes 1000s of names of generations, with dob and dod's, which inclusion in the OT seems a potent factor today.
quote:
What was the city Abraham came from again? Could it be the post Sumerian flood city of Ur?
IamJoseph writes:
Controversial issues such as incest and beastiality, which have never been confronted before, are dealt with in the most proper manner,
I dare you to read the Epic of Gilgemesh and say that again.
IamJoseph writes:
All laws, bar none, the world accepts in their institutions, have come from here - exclusively; how is this possible? Not a single worldly law comes from any other theology or philosophy till today.
LOL; never heard of the Code of Hammurabi, have you?
Ur. Yes, Hamurabi does contain the law of incest, I grant you this - though it was mandated for political reasons, to retain a family's wealth, as opposed its moral implications; the OT lists all the family trees which are regarded biologically incest. It is forbidden for a woman to marry her nephew, but not a man to marry his niece. But this belief system and nation does not exist anymore. My post says the correct laws are all contained in the OT, as opposed all originating there, and are the first alphabetical books.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
Historically, a host of cultures, nations, countries, kings and events are mentioned which knowledge is not available elsewhere; 3000 year historical figures, such as King david, are scientifically proven - while we cannot do the same for 2000 and 1500 year figures.
Yawn. This is too easy. I take it you have never heard of the Sumerian King List?
I have heard of it. Very little data is here, relating to one spacetime only. In contrast, the OT lists 100s of such nations, with dates and aerial mapping descriptions of the terrain, which are not available elsewhere. All reference to Abraham and his thread of Ishmael and Isaac, is not seen anywhere else; same with the nations listed in what is the first recorded crossing of the Arabian desert via a new route.
quote:
Hmmm, how about this for lasting appeal:
"So the Sumerians invented calendars, which they divided into twelve months based on the cycle of the moon. Since a year consisting of twelve lunar months is considerably shorter than a solar year, the Sumerians added a "leap month" every three years in order to catch up with the sun."
http://wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM
Lunar calendars were around, but not with lunar, solar and earth movements, the only one scientifically vindicated - and which came with the OT. This is the oldest and most accurate calender - it was required, as many OT laws were seasonal, date, day and time based.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Larni, posted 11-06-2007 9:12 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2007 1:39 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 260 of 305 (432535)
11-06-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by crashfrog
11-06-2007 2:07 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
If you know of an older, alphabetical book, then enlighten us? The book of the dead, is a manuscript in non-alphabetical, thus not a 'book'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2007 2:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2007 2:52 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 264 of 305 (432607)
11-07-2007 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by DrJones*
11-06-2007 2:46 PM


RE: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE.
quote:
I mean you're not going to get a zebra on Pluto because Pluto is nothing like Earth. If there is life on Pluto it is very very very very very very different from life here. Pluto has a very thin atmosphere (during the parts of its orbit when it has an atmosphere) of nitrogen, methane and carbon dioxide. It has a surface temp of around 44K. Zebras can't live under these condition. I would imagine that the vast majority of transitional species between your hypothetical virus and the zebra couln't live in these conditions.
If the conditions are not right in Pluto, can they see that in another galaxy the right conditions prevail, and would they mirgrate there, as do birds and animals here?
This is nonsense. All i'm trying to point out to you is that because of the extreme differences in enviroment between Earth and Pluto, you're not going to have the same organisms evolve. It has nothing to do with evolution only working on Earth.
My point referred to the term, Adaptation, not the environment. Namely, does the provision of adaptation apply only to one set of harsh conditions, that of earth, and no other; this appears what is being said. There are a miriad of differing conditions on earth, so if adaptation has any substance, it should apply in other harsh conditions, at least one in our solar system or the nearest galaxy.
Otherwise, there may be another factor performing the work of adaptation, which in any case is only an improvised academic term applied to all changes and prevailings of life forms: it is not a provable factor, and is akin to Nature; Creator; Bad Luck; etc. We use the term Adaptation generically and pervasively, applicable to all life forms, in all manner of varying and differing harsh conditions on earth, without any proof whatsoever it is the factor responsible for what is claim of it - yet it is a blatantly absent factor outside earth.
There is no scientific verification process here, because only an academic name is available, and nothing else, making it akin to terms used in religious beliefs. The search for water has been made, with the assumption life cannot exist without it, which is here used as a substitute for adaptation, and to prove its validity. But this would not assist even if water was or was not found; it is the 'adaptation' factor which has to be substantiated - and this can only be validated if life existed in conditions 'different' from earth - else adaptation becomes defunct. It is reasonable to apply the same criteria of verification of ToE, as demanded of genesis, if not not far more: if adaptation was presented by genesis - it would be rejected as a myth absent of any proof. Yes/no/plausable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by DrJones*, posted 11-06-2007 2:46 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by DrJones*, posted 11-07-2007 2:10 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 266 of 305 (432613)
11-07-2007 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by crashfrog
11-06-2007 2:52 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
The Bible isn't alphabetical; dictionaries are alphabetical. I think the word you mean is "phonetic", but the fact that Hebrew has a phonetic writing system doesn't strike me as anything but trivia, an artifact of Hebrew's descent from Aramaic (I'm talking about the writing system here), which itself descended from the Brahmic scripts of India.
Alphabetical books, not alphabetical listing, is what was obviously meant here.
Re descent of hebrew. I'm aware that most searched links place hebrew as 3rd or 4th atop the list, which is fine, because the hebrews were a relatively late comer in the ancient scene. India is an older culture, and should logically have pre-dating writings, because mental prowess is time related. However, my personal research and investigations show different results: India does not possess an earlier alphabetical writings in hard copy, certaonly no alphabetical books, and it should have abundent examples of these: she was a very active ancient trading nation, the red color in the pyramids was supplied by India 1200 years before Abraham existed. Additionally, there are no periodical transit writings throughout India's history, till much later on, to periods outside the early writings circle. Sanscrit is not as old as once imagined.
The current Hindhi alphabetical script is 99% the same as the hebrew, in alphabet designs and ancient word meanings: man;adam[heb];adami[hindhi]; 1000s of such examples are available. Here, unless hard copy precedent indian writings can be proved - I would say the indian alphabetical is derived from the Hebrew, probably around 700 BCE when the israelites were exiled to Babylon [Mesopotamia], and landed in India via the Mesopotamium empire invasion, at which time the hebrew was already in the alphabetical mode. There are some explanations how and why a later nation can emerge with a more advanced writings, but let me not deviate too far from the subject here.
In the m/e, the situation is even more surprising: despite that phoenecian alphabeticals are often referred to as a prototype of the hebrew, there is no alphabetical books found to identify this culture, which survived a 1000 years after the hebrews emerged, and were a far more mightier nation. Most of the phoenecian writings refer to bits and pieces of commercial reciepts and tomb epitaphs, w/o historical references such as dates. This syndrome also applies to ancient Egypt and Babylon: no alphabetical books for a 1000 years after the Hebrew. I see an anomoly here: either hebrew predates those, or some explanation is forthcoming of the inexplicable vacancy here.
quote:
People didn't invent writing to write the Bible, Joe. They had been writing for centuries before the first records of the texts that formed the Bible. Some of those manuscripts survive to this day.
Sure, this is the commonsense and logical position, and any divergence from it requires serious substantiations. The aspect of which writings came first is not much of a merit, as this is time factored, and one nation cannot control when they emerged. But equally, can you offer any explanation why ancient egypt, sumerian, phoenecian, chinese or indian writings - have not the same ancient output as the hebrew, in most cases being bereft of any finds - in terms of hard copy proofs in a consecutive thread evidencing their history? Here, it is of coz possiible that these exist and may still turn up in the future, but it is somewhat suspicious in light of the many nations mentioned which display no such evidence of advanced or simple alphabetical books which describe their own histories. We know that there is no mention of Abraham, Ishmael, jacob, etc from any other source than from the OT, despite that many nations interacted with these figures.
Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2007 2:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2007 11:49 AM IamJoseph has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024