|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Joseph,
I have posted my argument. Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I dont think so. That nothing can be proven an absolute is generic, and cannot apply to the issue of evidence of speech on this planet. i gave sound reasoning, evidence and the negation of your premise by leading scientists. It appears many cannot give the point to Genesis here, no matter how much clear evidences prevail, and you cannot take it away from false and wrong scientific premises anymore. This is like sectors of bad science becoming akin to a belief system - it becomes a blasphemy to go against it and a heresy to side with genesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
7,300 years ago in the Saharan, some Nabta desert folks built a tomb for a cow. If you can tell me how one of these guys got the others to bust their butts ceremonially burying a cow without the use of language I'll hear you out. Otherwise, you're talking out of your backside.
Page non trouve - Comp archaeology Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Firstly, your on the right track answering the vital factors. Now let's look closer at your link?
quote: Wow - what's a 'BASIN' - we know the nile never runs dry from the OT, so this not a big deal?
quote: Interesting - lets see what they mean by archaeological sites, and how it relates to speech.
quote: Not a name recalled - are we still talking 'speech'?
quote: We know from the link I gave previously, C14 does not apply to periods over 35,000 years. However, the link is hardly addressing speech evidence when it mentions arid deserts a few small carnivores. Correct so far?
quote: The above passage relies on this: 'These early cattle are regarded as domestic (Wendorf and Schild 1994)'. I disagree. Early cattle does not point to domestic agriculture by itself.
quote: If it is not identified, it does not apply. Nor has it anything to do with speech.
quote: Everything I said IS calibrated. Its supposed to be a science thread!
quote: So the only example, when there should be 1000s - is 'uncalibrated'. And this is also a hoaxy line: 'The many plant remains in these sites tell us they were collecting large numbers of edible wild plants, including sorghum, millets, legumes, tubers, and fruits'. Finding fruits and grains does not accord with what is concluded. And the 'huts, deep wells and living in organized villages consisting of small huts arranged in straight lines' is for sure a hoax: we know for a fact ancient egypt is newer than ancient Babylon - both being less than 5,500 years old.
quote:Were still in 'uncalibrated' territory, even 8000 years ago. quote: Sheep and goats - but no huts anymore.
quote: The last line 'may be' applies to the whole passage. Its all gibberish, hyped up spin to make things allign with what the author wants. If people were sacrificing - they would by then have NAMES of deities - because one cannot worship without words, names and languages. Apes do not do such, nor can any other life form, nor can humans.
quote: This last passage makes quantum leaps, based on 'structures' - which are these uncaliberated items: 'clay-lined and roofed chambers covered by rough stone tumuli'. The entire earth is clay lined. There are no man-made structures in egypt older than 6000. There are also no relics, writings, tables, beds, alters, drawings on stones, and guess what: there are no NAMES. I find it amazing you can accept such gibberish, for such an important issue, with no requirement for a single, non-debatable, non-confusing piece of evidence. I find it laughable you have not come to realise how close these dates are to Genesis, in time and area, namely 1200 years - and see no stark reality there is much say genesis is no myth, but that it stands today in the face of the most state of art science - that genesis is not myth but authentic and contemporary history: no such words as 'maybe'. The best your links do is surmise of a period much too close to genesis - with hoaxy examples. Back to the drawing board for you - come back with a NAME?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
A new claim. But again - its all limited to the genesis dating. No one has any countering evidence. Even that this issue is debated, with such tug of war and spins of inference speech existed pre-6000, is a great merit of genesis.
quote: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Wouldn't it have been easier to explain the cow thing?
The archeologist used char for their 14C samples. Neolithic fire pits had both fine and course adjustment knobs on them. A lot of the time the fine adjustment knob will be missing so they can't properly calibrate the fire pit for dating, -”” ””- -- -””” ”- ””””””. As for your post 110: Why on Earth would I want to play Devil's advocate for your absolute tosh. Where would one even start. I'd have to plagiarize you because there isn't another scrap of evidence in the world to support it. All someone need do to demolish you whole argument is insist that "Ted" is a 7,000 name and shift the burden of proof on to you. Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:So the only example, when there should be 1000s - is 'uncalibrated'. quote:Everything I said IS calibrated. Its supposed to be a science thread! quote:Were still in 'uncalibrated' territory, even 8000 years ago. You just don't get it! A calibrated date is a radiocarbon date that has been calibrated using the calibration curve. In the examples above the calibrated date is the accurate figure, while the uncalibrated figure does not take into account atmospheric variations in C14. By the way, the uncalibrated ages are expressed in radiocarbon years BP (before present). When you try to deal with science you need to get these details right or you shouldn't even bother. You certainly don't impress anyone when you consistently screw up the technical details. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
C14 is not a valid form of dating small margin periods. If I made an error in accounting for your decretionary measuring criteria, it still does not effect the comprehensive design how it was concluded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You may see a different science when doing so - devil's advocate is a legitimate tool for determining an issue, and acts as a cross-reference affirmation. if you want to know what hot is - you first have to know what cold is.
quote: Agreed. And that's all I asked for. What's the problem then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Do you even agree that 'IF' no speech occured before 6000, this creates a problem for ToE factors? If man is 300K years old, how come he never ADAPTED to speech so long? How come no other life form, even those 3 M years old - never graduated to attain the most vital adaptative tool?
This is not a hypothetical question: we have no conclusive evidence of speech, while all deliberations as a counter are perched only with the Genesis 6000 dating. In fact, we have no history per se pre-6000, and all population and mental prowess alligns only with genesis. Freaky? I see someone scared and paranoic of considering genesis may have something threatening. Understandable - I cannot convince any religious believer his belief is not necessarilly correct either!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: I quoted leading scientists only, and referred it to speech origins. Your post is deflecting and inconnected with me. Are you deliberately lying, Joseph, or are you suffering from severe schizophrenia, as your consistently bizarre (and "inconnected") English suggests. You quote Alan F. Alford at length, and he is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, let alone a leading scientist. So, do you agree that the phrase that I've highlighted in bold is a lie? What's odd is that you thought the article in some way backs your views, even though neither the author, nor the scientists he quotes share those views. Incidentally, here's a bit you left out:
quote: Chomsky holds the view that our species is hard-wired for language, meaning that if you find a fossilized homo-sapiens, it is a creature that had language. He just couldn't see how natural selection could bring it about, but then his understanding of natural selection is limited, because he can't understand how a wing could evolve either. Gould, the other scientist you misunderstand, thought that language ability probably evolved as a by-product effect of other things that were selected for. Both scientists (and the accountant/pseudo-scientist you quoted) think that our ancestors have had speech for tens of thousands of years, minimum, as do all sane people who've examined the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
This is not a hypothetical question: we have no conclusive evidence of speech, while all deliberations as a counter are perched only with the Genesis 6000 dating. In fact, we have no history per se pre-6000, and all population and mental prowess alligns only with genesis. Freaky?
No, wrong. We have good evidence of speech well before your magical 6,000 year date, as well as thousands of years of history. I am one of those who tells that history -- through archaeology. Just because you choose not to believe what science has learned doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By closing your ears and your mind you only expose yourself as a religious zealot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
And there is no archeology of a name dated 6001. I am hardly closing my ears to this science - it verifies everything in the OT, almost every week via relics and manuscipts, and these are often cross-related by other alligning evidence.
Perhaps you are dismissing the critical factor of no positive proof, when this is an anomoly if speech prevailed for 1000s of years before genesis' dating. Perhaps you are forgetting all the alledged evidences are vested only on inferrences, with examples which are so flimsy they have nothing to do with speech even if those examples had any credence. That humanity cannot come up with a single name 6000+ is a flagrant and shocking anomoly. There is also no history pre-6000, for the same reason: clay deposits and fossils are not history - wars, nations, kings, cities, religions are history, but these seem to only be seen this side of the 6000, as with human pops and all human mental growth grads. Your premise is made from omissions of the fulcrum, with a focus on exaggerated de-constructionism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Strong words, but Alford was not my, but lyx's link. I merely responded to items in that link, as a negation of it.
quote: I did not leave it out, but rather that has no credence or applicability. It says if modern humans have speech, they must have hed it 300K years ago. It offers no proof, while all proof opposes this premise.
quote: I have read chompy admitting that speech poses a great difficulty for ToE. If NS cannot allign with speech emergence, then there is no other factor which could. Clearly, speech, if not prevalent before 6000, does negate both adaptation and NS. It is one reason why many neo scientists are desperate to show speech as ancient, and all we have is spins and deconstructurism - when we should have prevasive, concrete proof outside of a science lab. We have absolute zilch - a shocking anomoly.
quote: So its a by-product now? And only of one species? And only seen within the 6000 block? I remind you, animals and birds are older [adaptation is baed on time periods], and possess greater audio dexterity than humans. What is your view 'if' speech does not date for 10s of 1000s of years, and is in fact less than 6000 - would this impact on ToE for you? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024