Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?
Force
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 153 (469993)
06-08-2008 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by IamJoseph
06-08-2008 8:11 PM


Re: Deafening silence
Joseph,
I have posted my argument.

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by IamJoseph, posted 06-08-2008 8:11 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by IamJoseph, posted 06-08-2008 8:51 PM Force has replied

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


Message 107 of 153 (469997)
06-08-2008 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Force
06-08-2008 8:32 PM


Re: Deafening silence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Force, posted 06-08-2008 8:32 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Force, posted 06-09-2008 6:14 PM IamJoseph has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 108 of 153 (470001)
06-08-2008 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by IamJoseph
06-08-2008 8:20 PM


Nabta
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by IamJoseph, posted 06-08-2008 8:20 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by IamJoseph, posted 06-08-2008 11:48 PM lyx2no has replied
 Message 110 by IamJoseph, posted 06-09-2008 12:06 AM lyx2no has not replied

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


Message 109 of 153 (470018)
06-08-2008 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by lyx2no
06-08-2008 9:37 PM


Re: Nabta
quote:
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
Firstly, your on the right track answering the vital factors. Now let's look closer at your link?
quote:
Introduction
Located 100 km west of Abu Simbel, in southernmost Egypt, Nabta Playa is a large, internally drained basin,
Wow - what's a 'BASIN' - we know the nile never runs dry from the OT, so this not a big deal?
quote:
today it contains dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of archaeological sites.
Interesting - lets see what they mean by archaeological sites, and how it relates to speech.
quote:
People came from many regions to Nabta Playa to record astronomical events, erect alignments of megaliths, and build impressive stone structures.
Not a name recalled - are we still talking 'speech'?
quote:
From around 65,000 years ago until about 12,000 years ago the Western Desert was hyper-arid, at least as dry as today and perhaps drier. This began to change after 12,000 years ago when the summer rains of tropical Africa began to move northward, bringing sufficient moisture for a wide variety of sahelian grasses, trees and bushes to grow, and for a few small animals to exist, mostly hares and small gazelle, but also including a few small carnivores.
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 earliest (11,000 - 9300 years ago, calibrated) settlements at Nabta were composed of small seasonal camps of cattle-herding and ceramic-using people. These early cattle are regarded as domestic (Wendorf and Schild 1994), and it may have been in the Western Desert that the African pattern of cattle herding developed, wherein cattle serve as a "walking larder" and provide milk and blood, rather than meat (except for ceremonial occasions) and are the economic basis for power and prestige.
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:
Pottery is very rare in these sites, but distinctive. It is decorated over the entire exterior with complex patterns of impressions applied with a comb in a rocking motion. The source of this pottery has not been identified,
If it is not identified, it does not apply. Nor has it anything to do with speech.
quote:
By 9000 years ago (8000 bp, uncalibrated),
Everything I said IS calibrated. Its supposed to be a science thread!
quote:
the settlements were much larger, and their inhabitants were able to live in the desert year-round, digging large, deep wells and living in organized villages consisting of small huts arranged in straight lines. 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. Around 8800 years ago (7800 bp, uncalibrated), they began to make pottery locally,
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:
A few hundred years later, around 8100 years ago (7100 bp, uncalibrated),
Were still in 'uncalibrated' territory, even 8000 years ago.
quote:
sheep and goats occur for the first time at Nabta, almost certainly introduced from Southwest Asia, where domestic caprovids had been known for over 2000 years. There must have been many changes in the settlement system to accommodate these new animals; the settlements are very large and contain numerous hearths, but there is no evidence of huts or houses.
Sheep and goats - but no huts anymore.
quote:
A major change occurred in the character of the Neolithic society at Nabta occurred around 7500 years ago, following a major drought which drove the previous groups from the desert. The groups who returned to the desert now clearly had a complex social system that expressed a degree of organization and control not previously seen in Egypt. They sacrificed young cows and buried them in clay-lined and roofed chambers covered by rough stone tumuli, they erected alignments of large, unshaped stones, they built Egypt's earliest astronomical measuring device (a "calendar circle" which appears to have been used to mark the summer solstice), and they constructed more than 30 complex structures having both surface and subterranean features. A shaped stone from one of these complexes may be the oldest known sculpture in Egypt.
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:
These structures are important because they indicate the way the people were able to organize work, celebrate their culture, and perhaps express their religious beliefs, and furthermore, they tell us that the Saharan people may have been more highly organized than their contemporaries in the Nile Valley.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by lyx2no, posted 06-08-2008 9:37 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by lyx2no, posted 06-09-2008 12:56 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2008 12:58 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 110 of 153 (470021)
06-09-2008 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by lyx2no
06-08-2008 9:37 PM


Re: Nabta
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by lyx2no, posted 06-08-2008 9:37 PM lyx2no has not replied

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


Message 111 of 153 (470024)
06-09-2008 12:17 AM


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:
Sinhala, 6000 years ago
by Asiff Hussein
It would seem surprising to many that the origins of the Sinhala language could be traced back to 6,000 years ago. Surprising but true. Linguistic research pioneered by nineteenth century German linguists like Franz Bopp and August Schleicher have made it possible to connect Sinhala words to words occurring in a good many European, Iranian and Indian languages belonging to what is known as the Indo-European family of languages and to trace them to their earliest forms.
This science known as comparative linguistics aims at establishing the close relationship that exists between such languages as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Lithuanian, German, French, English, Russian, Persian, Hindi and Sinhala as well as attempting to reconstruct the parent speech of all these related languages which are believed to have shared a common origin in the distant past.
The close connection between these languages is not very apparent at first glance due to the sound changes they have been subjected to throughout the centuries before assuming their present forms. However a closer examination will reveal that all these languages go back to a parent language which German scholars prefer to call the Ursprache or 'Early Speech'. This Proto- Indo-European language was evidently spoken in Southern Russia around 4500 - 3500 B.C. before its speakers dispersed to the outlying areas of Europe and Asia, taking with them their language, which with time became broken up into dialects, and ultimately distinct languages. The German Linguist August Schleicher was the first scholar to attempt the reconstruction of this Proto-Indo-European language in his epoch-making work, Compendium der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen published in 1861. Schleicher's method was simple. What he did was to gather around him many of the then known extinct and extant Indo-European languages from which he deduced how the oldest forms would have sounded like. These hypothetical reconstructed forms he denoted with an asterix, a practice which continues to this day. Schleicher also went on to publish a fable composed in this hypothetical language entitled Avis Akvasas Ka (The sheep and the horses) which has however been subject to some revision (see box). Julius Pokorny in his comprehensive series entitled Indogermanisches Etymologisches Worterbuch (1948-1969) has succeeded in reconstructing the Proto-Indo-European or PIE speech with greater accuracy.

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 112 of 153 (470027)
06-09-2008 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by IamJoseph
06-08-2008 11:48 PM


Re: Nabta
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by IamJoseph, posted 06-08-2008 11:48 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by IamJoseph, posted 06-09-2008 1:46 AM lyx2no has not replied
 Message 116 by IamJoseph, posted 06-09-2008 1:54 AM lyx2no has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 113 of 153 (470028)
06-09-2008 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by IamJoseph
06-08-2008 11:48 PM


Re: Nabta
quote:
Around 8800 years ago (7800 bp, uncalibrated), they began to make pottery locally,
So the only example, when there should be 1000s - is 'uncalibrated'.
quote:
By 9000 years ago (8000 bp, uncalibrated),
Everything I said IS calibrated. Its supposed to be a science thread!
quote:
A few hundred years later, around 8100 years ago (7100 bp, uncalibrated),
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by IamJoseph, posted 06-08-2008 11:48 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by IamJoseph, posted 06-09-2008 1:42 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 114 of 153 (470031)
06-09-2008 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Coyote
06-09-2008 12:58 AM


Re: Nabta
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2008 12:58 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 115 of 153 (470032)
06-09-2008 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by lyx2no
06-09-2008 12:56 AM


Re: Nabta
quote:
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.
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:
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.
Agreed. And that's all I asked for. What's the problem then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by lyx2no, posted 06-09-2008 12:56 AM lyx2no has not replied

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


Message 116 of 153 (470033)
06-09-2008 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by lyx2no
06-09-2008 12:56 AM


Re: Nabta
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by lyx2no, posted 06-09-2008 12:56 AM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2008 2:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 117 of 153 (470035)
06-09-2008 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by IamJoseph
06-08-2008 8:15 PM


Re: One lunatic quotes another. Chariots of the Gods!
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:
Most scientists now believe that Homo sapiens had speech from its very beginning. Studies of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) suggest that, since speech is widespread today, it must have developed from a genetic mutation in 'mitochondrial Eve' (mtDNA Eve), nearly 200,000 years ago.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by IamJoseph, posted 06-08-2008 8:15 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by IamJoseph, posted 06-09-2008 2:59 AM bluegenes has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 118 of 153 (470036)
06-09-2008 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by IamJoseph
06-09-2008 1:54 AM


Re: Nabta
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by IamJoseph, posted 06-09-2008 1:54 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by IamJoseph, posted 06-09-2008 2:42 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 119 of 153 (470040)
06-09-2008 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Coyote
06-09-2008 2:13 AM


Re: Nabta
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2008 2:13 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 120 of 153 (470042)
06-09-2008 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by bluegenes
06-09-2008 2:00 AM


Re: One lunatic quotes another. Chariots of the Gods!
quote:
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?
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:
Incidentally, here's a bit you left out:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most scientists now believe that Homo sapiens had speech from its very beginning. Studies of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) suggest that, since speech is widespread today, it must have developed from a genetic mutation in 'mitochondrial Eve' (mtDNA Eve), nearly 200,000 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 06-09-2008 2:00 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by bluegenes, posted 06-09-2008 3:18 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