sinned34
13th December 2005 - 03:46 PM
QUOTE
Evolutionists DON’T believe the bible! Creationists DO!
Actually, there ARE evolutionists who believe the bible. The difference between them and creationists is that they don't believe in a LITERAL translation of the books of Genesis.
Let's be realistic: there are THOUSANDS of different sects of Christianity and Judaism, because of multiple translations of the Bible, and the impossibility of being able to discern betwixt what was meant to be literal and what was allegory (and what was completely false) contained within it's pages. Messy, Jerry Duke, and NewGuy are all wonderful examples of people who've probably incredible amounts of time studying the Bible, yet they all have come to some amazingly differing conclusions on what is contained within it. And none of them are completely wrong (or right, for that matter) because it is all about how you read it: which "truth" trumps all other "truths" contained inside the Bible? Only God really knows, and His/Her/Their lips are sealed (although millions of people think He/She/They is/are talking to them personally).
With regards to previous documents, people who believe the Bible is the Word Of God believe that it has always existed, even before those earlier texts. After all, the Bible talks about the beginning of the universe, and because of that, it's obvious (to those who believe) that Genesis predates any other written (or spoken) word. Therefore, all other religious tomes can be easily dismissed by the "faith-filled" mind. To those who do not believe the Bible is a holy book, it reads just like any other mythological text: it contains some wisdom about humanity, shows much of the barbarity that humans commit on one another, and details how humans project their weaknesses, strengths and hopes onto their Gods. Extremely few are the people who, if you handed them a Bible to read without telling them it is God's Word, would think that it is an divinely inspired compilation of documents.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evolutionists DON’T believe the bible! Creationists DO! |
Actually, there ARE evolutionists who believe the bible. The difference between them and creationists is that they don't believe in a LITERAL translation of the books of Genesis.
Let's be realistic: there are THOUSANDS of different sects of Christianity and Judaism, because of multiple translations of the Bible, and the impossibility of being able to discern betwixt what was meant to be literal and what was allegory (and what was completely false) contained within it's pages. Messy, Jerry Duke, and NewGuy are all wonderful examples of people who've probably incredible amounts of time studying the Bible, yet they all have come to some amazingly differing conclusions on what is contained within it. And none of them are completely wrong (or right, for that matter) because it is all about how you read it: which "truth" trumps all other "truths" contained inside the Bible? Only God really knows, and His/Her/Their lips are sealed (although millions of people think He/She/They is/are talking to them personally).
With regards to previous documents, people who believe the Bible is the Word Of God believe that it has always existed, even before those earlier texts. After all, the Bible talks about the beginning of the universe, and because of that, it's obvious (to those who believe) that Genesis predates any other written (or spoken) word. Therefore, all other religious tomes can be easily dismissed by the "faith-filled" mind. To those who do not believe the Bible is a holy book, it reads just like any other mythological text: it contains some wisdom about humanity, shows much of the barbarity that humans commit on one another, and details how humans project their weaknesses, strengths and hopes onto their Gods. Extremely few are the people who, if you handed them a Bible to read without telling them it is God's Word, would think that it is an divinely inspired compilation of documents.
Is it WRONG to want to know more about Jesus than what is permitted by the bible?
It is wrong to seek anything that is not permitted by the Bible, according to some of it's writers, and most of it's adherents (Mormons being the exception, but that's another discussion completely). We are merely lucky that secular trends have affected Christianity and Judaism enough so that their religions have evolved, and (with some exceptions) they no longer believe it is required by God to slaughter nonbelievers, apostates, or blasphemers.
3ohm
15th December 2005 - 10:55 AM
Isn't the search for knowledge a lot like the childhood game: BROKEN TELEPHONE?
Throughout the last 5000 years, information has been passed down from generation to generation, translated from language to language; and then deemed perfectly accurate!
Surely when you omit or change a single word, you are manipulating the message of the author? And how accurate can ANY TRANSLATION really be? Perfect? And surely the further BACK you go in history, the more ACCURATE and less edited the information is? Isn’t that LOGICAL??? If we could read the bible in its original form and language; wouldn’t it be A LOT MORE accurate? I know I would trust it A HELL OF A LOT MORE!
I am fully aware of the Reigns on logic when it comes to the bible and its minions, but I thought scientific minds always searched for answers and NOT beliefs! Are scientists really still bound by the chains of biblical obedience and conformity? Isn’t the Inquisition over yet? Shouldn’t logic and understanding be the ‘holy grails’ of Science?
Isn’t BELIEF what you have when you’re SHORT of UNDERSTANDING? It either makes sense or it doesn’t, if it doesn’t then you NEED to apply some sort of belief to rationalize it to the mind. Isn’t it?
Well I suppose logic can’t erase 1000 of years of threats and indoctrination or supply a ticket to heaven. Some people are just bound by their fears and are maybe living in hell because of it! I know that it’s a TOUCHY subject but I never imagined modern day intellectuals to be so cowardly in their search for knowledge!
Just looking around the Evolution/Creation forum proves how scientists would much rather tip-toe their way AROUND the real issue instead of trying to GET TO THE BOTTOM of it! We can debate WHO said WHAT for pages and pages, even compare
T-shirts for ages; but when the CORE issue arises, it’s too much to handle!
So please tell me, if we took Genesis out of the equation; would there still a forum??? What opposition to logic could there possibly be?
sinned34
15th December 2005 - 04:40 PM
Sorry, I must not have played "broken telephone" when I was a child, so I don't know exactly what you are getting at with that as an illustration.
I am curious as to what information you are talking about when you say that it has been passed down for thousands of years and deemed correct. There is what many people would consider "ancient wisdom": wry little sayings that hold a kernel of "truth" about the human condition, some genuinely good stories and morality tales, and some excellent records and understandings of the patterns of astronomical bodies, floods, weather, etc. However, the CAUSE attributed behind these patterns, more often than not, were attributed to the Gods of those ancient people.
I disagree that the Bible was more "true" hundreds to thousands of years before it was actually written. It is mainly a compilation of ancient spoken traditions (some more ancient then others) that were eventually worked and woven together into a relatively coherent collection. Many of those traditions likely evolved from previously existing beliefs that existed within the Middle East, which we can see with many of the similarities (and some of the differences) with older religious systems.
What is happening today is that religion used to fill two niches: it explained the "spiritual" side of life (who we are, how to act towards one another, morality, etc), and it also explained how the world around us functioned and how it came to be. Over the past few hundred years, scientific inquiry has taken over as the leading understanding for how the world functions. For some religionists, their religious texts are considered so absolutely perfect, that any threat to one teaching (in this case, their texts' explanation of the physical universe) becomes a threat to everything they believe. This is why there is such a desperate push by many evangelical Christians (and other groups as well) to equate evolution and many scientific theories with atheism: their brand of belief has been constructed in such a way that a strong blow to any of the tenets of their faith brings the entire structure of their religion crashing down.
Evolution is not atheistic by any means, but it certainly can be antagonistic to a literal reading of some of the Bible. Make no mistake, I find religion extremely distasteful, though I would not be willing to take it away from anyone, except in cases where a religion requires harm to others. Pretty much every religion has something valuable to teach everybody, whether it be an actual moral of said religion, or an example that serves as a warning to others about dangerous attitudes or actions (the Heaven's Gate cult, for example). However, there are certainly religions that are literally and truly fighting for their life - some doctrines will have to change to accept the universe as science shows it to us.
Mr Mudd
26th December 2005 - 05:53 PM
A lot of science is so complex and uncheckable to modern man that we take on faith that it is true. There is also a lot of fraud going on in science just to get the funds to keep Dr "Bull Shite" in his or her BMW. But scientists will protect each other because it might be there funding which might be on the chopping block next.
Off with his grant / head!
Happy Solstice
Everyone
Grumpy
26th December 2005 - 06:05 PM
Mudd
QUOTE
There is also a lot of fraud going on in science just to get the funds to keep Dr "Bull Shite" in his or her BMW.
A lot of fraud??? What fraud there has been has been exposed by the same scientists you are slandering. Frauds don't last long in science, especially since all the experiments must be repeatable by your rivals for those same grants and if you can discredit that rival your odds of getting his grant money goes up.
Maybe you need to find a topic you know something about and stop slandering those with superior morals in relation to your own, OK???
Grumpy
dad1
26th December 2005 - 10:37 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 26 2005, 06:05 PM)
.....those with superior morals in relation to your own, OK???
Grumpy
Scientists have no better morals than anyone else. In fact, when we see the kind of evil things done in the name of science, many of them are monsters! Frankensteinian genetical experiments, abortions, WOMD, bio terrors, and many other things all clearly illustrate this.
Some good knowledge, some bad, some good scientists, some quite wicked, like the rest of mankind, it is a mixed bag!
As for the OP, yes, the bible represents the oldest records in the world, right back to eden, and creation itself! The records were here, but perhaps not put to paper as early as some other things! That is why the supposedly older writings could have been originated with God's people passing through some pagan lands. Sometimes they got it a l;ittle wrong, or maybe it was embellished later, etc. God is the source, and our record is the oldest, but not in written form on earth, perhaps!!!
Kaeroll
26th December 2005 - 10:47 PM
The first half of dad1's post was, perhaps, the closest to the truth he has ever come. The second half let him down, though.
(I'm ignoring our new conspiracy theorist, all he seems to have done so far is sling 'mudd' around...)
Guest
27th December 2005 - 04:24 AM
QUOTE
As for the OP, yes, the bible represents the oldest records in the world, right back to eden, and creation itself!
Oldest? I've seen cave drawings that are older. Quite a bold claim to think the bible is the oldest record around.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for the OP, yes, the bible represents the oldest records in the world, right back to eden, and creation itself! |
Oldest? I've seen cave drawings that are older. Quite a bold claim to think the bible is the oldest record around.
The records were here, but
perhaps not put to paper as early as some other things! That is why the
supposedly older writings
could have been originated with God's people passing through some pagan lands.
Lots of coulds, shoulds, perhaps, and supposedlys. This has been a trend through a majority of your posts and gives a lot of discredit to any ideas you have thrown out there.
Anyhow, as proven above i doubt anyone who believes in the bible would understand/comprehend that the 'paganistic' religions could possibly be around before them. An argument that like others, can be proven with science/understanding, but not comprehended by religion.
- Amok
Guest
27th December 2005 - 04:39 AM
QUOTE
A lot of science is so complex and uncheckable to modern man that we take on faith that it is true.
Just because something is not understood by the common man does not make it untrue, or to be taken on 'faith'. I doubt that the 'modern man' has any idea how an LCD monitor works, but using one takes no faith at all.
I hope that next time you use anything that is more complex than a camping fire, that you do not start praying to it because it requires faith to use/understand.
Or maybe next time you send email, or a post to a forum...are you taking it on faith that it gets sent? Maybe to make sure that you can read this post i will pray to the gods of http to prove my faith
- Amok
dad1
27th December 2005 - 05:56 AM
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 27 2005, 04:24 AM)
QUOTE
Oldest? I've seen cave drawings that are older. Quite a bold claim to think the bible is the oldest record around.
All you need to do is look at how that drawings are dated. The dates are wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oldest? I've seen cave drawings that are older. Quite a bold claim to think the bible is the oldest record around. |
All you need to do is look at how that drawings are dated. The dates are wrong.
Lots of coulds, shoulds, perhaps, and supposedlys. This has been a trend through a majority of your posts and gives a lot of discredit to any ideas you have thrown out there.
In other words, you can't say anything against it, but don't like it. So?
QUOTE
An argument that like others, can be proven with science/understanding,
I am happy to be the onr to break the news to you. Science can't prove old dates! They never happened. It is merely assumptions. No science.
Your fellow human (yfh)
27th December 2005 - 06:15 AM
QUOTE
Science can't prove old dates! They never happened. It is merely assumptions. No science.
An educated guess is the bulk of wisdom.
They try to state facts, and are not thi enemy.
Who will you realy trust?
dad1
27th December 2005 - 06:31 AM
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Dec 27 2005, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE
Science can't prove old dates! They never happened. It is merely assumptions. No science.
An educated guess is the bulk of wisdom.
They try to state facts, and are not thi enemy.
Who will you realy trust?
If I get to looking for someone to trust for opinions, assumptions, and belief. I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, if you have no evidence, I'll take God's opinion, thank you very much!
MXWordNerd
27th December 2005 - 06:33 AM
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 06:31 AM)
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Dec 27 2005, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE
Science can't prove old dates! They never happened. It is merely assumptions. No science.
An educated guess is the bulk of wisdom.
They try to state facts, and are not thi enemy.
Who will you realy trust?
If I get to looking for someone to trust for opinions, assumptions, and belief. I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, if you have no evidence, I'll take God's opinion, thank you very much!
And how the hell do you know what that is?
dad1
27th December 2005 - 06:52 AM
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 27 2005, 06:33 AM)
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 06:31 AM)
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Dec 27 2005, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE
Science can't prove old dates! They never happened. It is merely assumptions. No science.
An educated guess is the bulk of wisdom.
They try to state facts, and are not thi enemy.
Who will you realy trust?
If I get to looking for someone to trust for opinions, assumptions, and belief. I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, if you have no evidence, I'll take God's opinion, thank you very much!
And how the hell do you know what that is?
How do you know what it isn't? You don't. any more than what it is. I can tell you what is isn't-anti bible, Godless, baseless so called scien speculations!
MXWordNerd
27th December 2005 - 06:58 AM
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 06:52 AM)
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 27 2005, 06:33 AM)
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 06:31 AM)
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Dec 27 2005, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE
Science can't prove old dates! They never happened. It is merely assumptions. No science.
An educated guess is the bulk of wisdom.
They try to state facts, and are not thi enemy.
Who will you realy trust?
If I get to looking for someone to trust for opinions, assumptions, and belief. I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, if you have no evidence, I'll take God's opinion, thank you very much!
And how the hell do you know what that is?
How do you know what it isn't? You don't. any more than what it is. I can tell you what is isn't-anti bible, Godless, baseless so called scien speculations!
So we're back to trying to prove negatives?
We've come full circle then.
You can't prove negatives. And you can't disprove something that hasn't been proven.
So, the original question stands: How they hell do you know what god says about anything?
dad1
27th December 2005 - 07:38 AM
QUOTE
So we're back to trying to prove negatives?
Hey, don't blame me if your negatives can't be proved. Thats something you need to face!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So we're back to trying to prove negatives? |
Hey, don't blame me if your negatives can't be proved. Thats something you need to face!
We've come full circle then.
You go round in circles, not much choice when you are in a box.
QUOTE
You can't prove negatives. And you can't disprove something that hasn't been proven.
So dump your PO baloney pronto, and let's move on to the light of a brighter day!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You can't prove negatives. And you can't disprove something that hasn't been proven. |
So dump your PO baloney pronto, and let's move on to the light of a brighter day!
How they hell do you know what god says about anything?
Bible. Duh. But I don't think what He says concerns you, just bogus PO dreams, and your weird death future. You should concern yourself with ceasing and desisting your false PO past based nightmares.
amok
27th December 2005 - 07:57 AM
dad1 is once again on the attack, with the worst logic known to man.
You can say, chickens lay eggs.
dad1 will say, Prove It! Think outside the egg!
You can then say, i just said that chickens lay eggs!
dad1 will say then, well...that's just your CO (chicken only) belief!
you say in frustration, here's a chicken, it just layed an egg...?
dad1 will say happily, you only Believe it layed an egg, that egg exists in the CO universe, which is true now but was not true before and will not be true after
dad1
QUOTE
Hey, don't blame me if your negatives can't be proved. Thats something you need to face!
indeed, sadly as it is. i guess we will have to bow out in shame because we cannot prove our negatives
i have no hope in life left now that i cannot prove my negatives. one-hour-photo is my only salvation.
Amusedly,
- Amok
dad1
27th December 2005 - 08:09 AM
QUOTE
You can say, chickens lay eggs.
dad1 will say, Prove It! Think outside the egg!
No, we can see they do just that. You are parable challenged.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You can say, chickens lay eggs.
dad1 will say, Prove It! Think outside the egg! |
No, we can see they do just that. You are parable challenged.
indeed, sadly as it is. i guess we will have to bow out in shame because we cannot prove our negatives
Cheer up, in the spirit of magnimonity, and good sportmanship, I accept.
QUOTE
.....
i have no hope in life left now that i cannot prove my negatives. ..
You will have to learn to deal with reality. Some things we can evidence, other things are just belief. You need to learn the difference.
If God wrote a book with history right back to creation itself, why would we assume other records are older? Ridiculous. Let's face it, that is just opinion.
Nessus
27th December 2005 - 08:13 AM
Mr Mudd:
QUOTE
A lot of science is so complex and uncheckable to modern man that we take on faith that it is true. There is also a lot of fraud going on in science just to get the funds to keep Dr "Bull Shite" in his or her BMW. But scientists will protect each other because it might be there funding which might be on the chopping block next.
Just like grumpy said, "Frauds don't last long in science". Science isnt to blame (at least it cant take most of the blame, there most likely is a more fraud resistant way to do Science) but mostly people being greedy. Falsify the Science to make it look better than it is to get money.
But thanks to Science being self-correcting and the fact that all Science experiments need to be repeatable, this (in my opinion) isnt a large problem. Its much worse than stealing say a computer from your workplace. Consider the stem-cell researcher, his career is ruined because of his fraud, how many people would risk that? not many.
Guest:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A lot of science is so complex and uncheckable to modern man that we take on faith that it is true. There is also a lot of fraud going on in science just to get the funds to keep Dr "Bull Shite" in his or her BMW. But scientists will protect each other because it might be there funding which might be on the chopping block next. |
Just like grumpy said, "Frauds don't last long in science". Science isnt to blame (at least it cant take most of the blame, there most likely is a more fraud resistant way to do Science) but mostly people being greedy. Falsify the Science to make it look better than it is to get money.
But thanks to Science being self-correcting and the fact that all Science experiments need to be repeatable, this (in my opinion) isnt a large problem. Its much worse than stealing say a computer from your workplace. Consider the stem-cell researcher, his career is ruined because of his fraud, how many people would risk that? not many.
Guest:
I hope that next time you use anything that is more complex than a camping fire, that you do not start praying to it because it requires faith to use/understand.
MXWordNerd
27th December 2005 - 08:14 AM
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 07:38 AM)
QUOTE
So we're back to trying to prove negatives?
Hey, don't blame me if your negatives can't be proved. Thats something you need to face!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So we're back to trying to prove negatives? |
Hey, don't blame me if your negatives can't be proved. Thats something you need to face!
We've come full circle then.
You go round in circles, not much choice when you are in a box.
QUOTE
You can't prove negatives. And you can't disprove something that hasn't been proven.
So dump your PO baloney pronto, and let's move on to the light of a brighter day!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You can't prove negatives. And you can't disprove something that hasn't been proven. |
So dump your PO baloney pronto, and let's move on to the light of a brighter day!
How they hell do you know what god says about anything?
Bible. Duh. But I don't think what He says concerns you, just bogus PO dreams, and your weird death future. You should concern yourself with ceasing and desisting your false PO past based nightmares.
How about we ignore this guy now? He's clearly off his rocker.
GeneSplicer
27th December 2005 - 05:26 PM
Dad1’s websites:
http://treasurecity.org/ http://geocities.com/lovecreates/Dad1’s “ground breaking” new theory of split/merged universe:
http://treasurecity.org/cgi/books/split.zipDad1’s email address: gerald.gorman@att.net loveisgod@dr.com
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 04:09 AM)
You will have to learn to deal with reality. Some things we can evidence, other things are just belief. You need to learn the difference.
A book of parables and myth altered over time and “borrowing” items form other older cultures is evidence of only the myth. It can be proven that the book only goes back a few thousand years. To claim otherwise is a lie or to ignore reality.
The subject is “Is the bible the oldest book we have”. Even using the altered perception of reality posed by dad1, it is not. The predecessors to books were codices and parchment prior to that. The bible was not created until after the creation of the codex. Dad1 may claim that the bible is the oldest book, but even by what he states, it is only in the running for the oldest oral tradition. There are books, codices and parchments far older than the first xian bible. After all, remember that the bible had to be canonized and it was a group of men, not a god, who decided what was to be included in it.
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 04:09 AM)
If God wrote a book with history right back to creation itself, why would we assume other records are older? Ridiculous.
But the bible was not written until a few thousand years ago. Remember, canonization.
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 04:09 AM)
Let's face it, that is just opinion.
No, that is reality. The creation and canonizatioin of the xian bible is established history and even took place within your neutered timeline of four thousand years.
GeneSplicer
27th December 2005 - 05:32 PM
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 27 2005, 04:14 AM)
How about we ignore this guy now? He's clearly off his rocker.
Those who profess the violence, intolerance and the extremism that dad1 has in this forum need to be taken to task and stood up to. It is mindsets like his that pose a threat not only to personal freedoms but the advancement of our society on many levels.
Mr Mudd
27th December 2005 - 06:04 PM
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 27 2005, 08:13 AM)
Mr Mudd:
QUOTE
A lot of science is so complex and uncheckable to modern man that we take on faith that it is true. There is also a lot of fraud going on in science just to get the funds to keep Dr "Bull Shite" in his or her BMW. But scientists will protect each other because it might be there funding which might be on the chopping block next.
Just like grumpy said, "Frauds don't last long in science". Science isnt to blame (at least it cant take most of the blame, there most likely is a more fraud resistant way to do Science) but mostly people being greedy. Falsify the Science to make it look better than it is to get money.
But thanks to Science being self-correcting and the fact that all Science experiments need to be repeatable, this (in my opinion) isnt a large problem. Its much worse than stealing say a computer from your workplace. Consider the stem-cell researcher, his career is ruined because of his fraud, how many people would risk that? not many.
Guest:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A lot of science is so complex and uncheckable to modern man that we take on faith that it is true. There is also a lot of fraud going on in science just to get the funds to keep Dr "Bull Shite" in his or her BMW. But scientists will protect each other because it might be there funding which might be on the chopping block next. |
Just like grumpy said, "Frauds don't last long in science". Science isnt to blame (at least it cant take most of the blame, there most likely is a more fraud resistant way to do Science) but mostly people being greedy. Falsify the Science to make it look better than it is to get money.
But thanks to Science being self-correcting and the fact that all Science experiments need to be repeatable, this (in my opinion) isnt a large problem. Its much worse than stealing say a computer from your workplace. Consider the stem-cell researcher, his career is ruined because of his fraud, how many people would risk that? not many.
Guest:
I hope that next time you use anything that is more complex than a camping fire, that you do not start praying to it because it requires faith to use/understand.
Excatly this happens in the foundation series, good set of books. Any "fact" we have in science is assumed given the information we have at any given time. And science is over and over proven itself wrong as we make new advances.
Diggin up the dirt
Mr Mudd
Mr Mudd
27th December 2005 - 06:13 PM
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - George Bernard Shaw
MM
dad1
27th December 2005 - 06:31 PM
QUOTE
A book of parables and myth altered over time ....
This is why the bible is much better than that sort of thing! It was properly and meticulously preserved, and can be compared to the ancient hebrew copies. The other stuff amounts to pagan preaching, and rumours.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A book of parables and myth altered over time .... |
This is why the bible is much better than that sort of thing! It was properly and meticulously preserved, and can be compared to the ancient hebrew copies. The other stuff amounts to pagan preaching, and rumours.
. It can be proven that the book only goes back a few thousand years..
Why ignore reality? The written copies we know about don't much matter. The record was here in other forms.
QUOTE
The bible was not created until after the creation of the codex. Dad1 may claim that the bible is the oldest book, but even by what he states, it is only in the running for the oldest oral tradition
It may have been written in heaven, we win!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The bible was not created until after the creation of the codex. Dad1 may claim that the bible is the oldest book, but even by what he states, it is only in the running for the oldest oral tradition |
It may have been written in heaven, we win!
But the bible was not written until a few thousand years ago. Remember, canonization.
Hec, that only goes back to Jesus day! What do you think He fulfilled, and read from then!? Ridiculous.
QUOTE
No, that is reality. The creation and canonizatioin of the [] bible is established history and even took place within your neutered timeline of four thousand years.
There were no Christians 4000 years ago, what neutered talk is this? They have a pretty good idea how old the ancient scriptures are. Because it is so properly documented a record, it jives with the flood timeframes, unlike the mish mash funny, wrongly dated paganistic pratings.
RealityCheck
27th December 2005 - 09:43 PM
QUOTE (Mr Mudd+Dec 27 2005, 06:04 PM)
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 27 2005, 08:13 AM)
Mr Mudd:
QUOTE
A lot of science is so complex and uncheckable to modern man that we take on faith that it is true. There is also a lot of fraud going on in science just to get the funds to keep Dr "Bull Shite" in his or her BMW. But scientists will protect each other because it might be there funding which might be on the chopping block next.
Just like grumpy said, "Frauds don't last long in science". Science isnt to blame (at least it cant take most of the blame, there most likely is a more fraud resistant way to do Science) but mostly people being greedy. Falsify the Science to make it look better than it is to get money.
But thanks to Science being self-correcting and the fact that all Science experiments need to be repeatable, this (in my opinion) isnt a large problem. Its much worse than stealing say a computer from your workplace. Consider the stem-cell researcher, his career is ruined because of his fraud, how many people would risk that? not many.
Guest:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A lot of science is so complex and uncheckable to modern man that we take on faith that it is true. There is also a lot of fraud going on in science just to get the funds to keep Dr "Bull Shite" in his or her BMW. But scientists will protect each other because it might be there funding which might be on the chopping block next. |
Just like grumpy said, "Frauds don't last long in science". Science isnt to blame (at least it cant take most of the blame, there most likely is a more fraud resistant way to do Science) but mostly people being greedy. Falsify the Science to make it look better than it is to get money.
But thanks to Science being self-correcting and the fact that all Science experiments need to be repeatable, this (in my opinion) isnt a large problem. Its much worse than stealing say a computer from your workplace. Consider the stem-cell researcher, his career is ruined because of his fraud, how many people would risk that? not many.
Guest:
I hope that next time you use anything that is more complex than a camping fire, that you do not start praying to it because it requires faith to use/understand.
Excatly this happens in the foundation series, good set of books. Any "fact" we have in science is assumed given the information we have at any given time. And science is over and over proven itself wrong as we make new advances.
Diggin up the dirt
Mr Mudd
.
Hello Mudd.
As has been stated many times before now: Science IS self-correcting. That is it's strength above all other ways of proceeding to observe & accumulate knowledge/wisdom. Anything else is fraught with subjective dangers such as those inherent in your every post to date. And that is why we scientists just love to 'falsify' other scientists' working assumptions...so that we may get closer to truth than we were before! Also remember, 'science' as such, in our 'organised' and 'systematic' manner is only a few hundred years 'old'; so give it the same THOUSANDS of years that RELIGION/SUPERSTITION has had, and THEN judge 'science' and 'scientists, heh? Fair go? Ciao.
RealityCheck.
.
GeneSplicer
28th December 2005 - 01:55 AM
Dad1’s websites:
http://treasurecity.org/ http://geocities.com/lovecreates/Dad1’s “ground breaking” new theory of split/merged universe:
http://treasurecity.org/cgi/books/split.zipDad1’s email address: gerald.gorman@att.net loveisgod@dr.com
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 02:31 PM)
This is why the bible is much better than that sort of thing! It was properly and meticulously preserved, and can be compared to the ancient hebrew copies. The other stuff amounts to pagan preaching, and rumours.
This claim of your is precisely why the xian bible is not anything you have presented it to be in regards to age and foundation. The xian bible has been spun and translated over several generations and languages and is anything but infallible or meticulously preserved.
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 02:31 PM)
Why ignore reality? The written copies we know about don't much matter. The record was here in other forms.
“Other forms” means what exactly? Spiritual or oral? Let’s assume you plan on sticking to reality for once and pick oral. It is a fact that any oral traditions, parables and myth changes over as little time as one person to another in other words one generation.
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 02:31 PM)
It may have been written in heaven, we win!
“May have, maybe, possibly”? Do you have something tangible and something other than supposition and myth to provide?
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 02:31 PM)
Hec, that only goes back to Jesus day! What do you think He fulfilled, and read from then!? Ridiculous.
So previously you claimed that our linear existence only extends back to roughly four thousand years and now you are claiming that established history and timeline is also incorrect? And what would be the source of the fact to prove this wrong? Would it be the book that you and others claim is the oldest? This is the same circular dance you engage in thread after thread.
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 02:31 PM)
There were no Christians 4000 years ago, what neutered talk is this?
Your claims that our linear existence only extend back to roughly four thousand years. You have stated any date claimed past this is “delusion”. That is your neutered timeline.
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 27 2005, 02:31 PM)
They have a pretty good idea how old the ancient scriptures are. Because it is so properly documented a record, it jives with the flood timeframes, unlike the mish mash funny, wrongly dated paganistic pratings.
So, your book of myth is reliable because you can date the parchment it was written on after its oral tradition ended, but all other books and sources of written myth are just “pagan” and therefore irrelevant, in error and wrong?
The timeline of the evolution of the xian bible is known. It was, like all religious tomes, a creation of man. If it were divinely inspired or dictated, then there would be no deviation in any copy and no evolution or change of the tome over centuries. The xian bible may be old, even if you consider its oral tradition if any , but it is not the oldest book. If it were the oldest book, then would it not be written in the first language ever created by mankind? Since there are civilizations that predate the xian bible and the root documents of the xian bible, any claim of it being the first and oldest book is a wish of the faithful.
birdan
28th December 2005 - 02:14 AM
First Dad1.
Now Mr. Mudd too.
Have we just witnessed mitosis?
RealityCheck
28th December 2005 - 02:18 AM
Poor stupid dadl.
You don't see your self-contradiction when you claim that our 'PO dating' techniques are wrong, yet you DEPEND on those very same 'PO dating' techniques when YOU 'maintain' that the bible 'records' are the 'age' you maintain they are?
The phrase "loony tunes" doesn't do justice to your malevolent lying and monomaniacal pollution of cyberspace. Give it up, you idiot....before you are hauled away by your own family.....to that funny farm where you can also see your 'pretty pink faireys' like the other inmates.
Sincerely and without hate; yours,
RealityCheck.
PS: Hi BIRDAN!...Happy holidays! And you could be right...for that's probably the only way that particular 'microbe' will ever 'reproduce'...for I can't imagine any sane 'nubile maiden' coming within a mile of that dadl (he could always force his attentions on one, I suppose...but she would certainly commit hari kiri rather than live with the memory of that monomaniac's touch...ugh)!
dad1
28th December 2005 - 03:04 AM
QUOTE
The [] bible has been spun and translated over several generations and languages and is anything but infallible or meticulously preserved.
The holy bible, that includes the old testament goes back to hebrew. The bible itself is not what is spun, but translations, and interpretations, etc. All under the mighty Hand of God.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The [] bible has been spun and translated over several generations and languages and is anything but infallible or meticulously preserved. |
The holy bible, that includes the old testament goes back to hebrew. The bible itself is not what is spun, but translations, and interpretations, etc. All under the mighty Hand of God.
“Other forms” means what exactly? Spiritual or oral? Let’s assume you plan on sticking to reality for once and pick oral. It is a fact that any oral traditions, parables and myth changes over as little time as one person to another in other words one generation.
The word will still be here after this physical universe passes away, it is forever. Written in the halls of heaven. How men preserved His communications before the flood we don't know. But the record was there. The reality you need to stick to is that you cannot show otherwise, of course, save in your usual dark dreams.
QUOTE
So previously you claimed that our linear existence only extends back to roughly four thousand years and now you are claiming that established history and timeline is also incorrect?
We were here since the garden, around the same time the world, then the universe was made! Dos this count as part of your 'linear' existence? We will be here forever as well, does this count? The thing that is wrong is the dates people have assigned to ancient civilizations beyond 4400 years ago or so.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So previously you claimed that our linear existence only extends back to roughly four thousand years and now you are claiming that established history and timeline is also incorrect? |
We were here since the garden, around the same time the world, then the universe was made! Dos this count as part of your 'linear' existence? We will be here forever as well, does this count? The thing that is wrong is the dates people have assigned to ancient civilizations beyond 4400 years ago or so.
Your claims that our linear existence only extend back to roughly four thousand years. You have stated any date claimed past this is “delusion”. That is your neutered timeline.
No, your dating methods are invalid beyond that time, men and the world were still here, and anything but neutered!
QUOTE
all other books and sources of written myth are just “pagan” and therefore irrelevant, in error and wrong?
Where they were improperly dated, or where they conflict with the bible, I would say, you bet your touche.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| all other books and sources of written myth are just “pagan” and therefore irrelevant, in error and wrong? |
Where they were improperly dated, or where they conflict with the bible, I would say, you bet your touche.
And what would be the source of the fact to prove this wrong? Would it be the book that you and others claim is the oldest?
Written records of the bible found so far are not the oldest, apparently. That means nothing.
QUOTE
If it were the oldest book, then would it not be written in the first language ever created by mankind?
After the tower of babel, likely, that were followers of the Living God, and He gave His word to. Which seems to be Hebrew! At least by the time a written record was needed for His people.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If it were the oldest book, then would it not be written in the first language ever created by mankind? |
After the tower of babel, likely, that were followers of the Living God, and He gave His word to. Which seems to be Hebrew! At least by the time a written record was needed for His people.
Since there are civilizations that predate the [] bible and the root documents of the [] bible, any claim of it being the first and oldest book is a wish of the faithful.
No, the only thing they may predate is the written record, but their records still could be affected by the roving people of God, trade routes, etc.
RealityCheck
28th December 2005 - 03:16 AM
Hey there dadl-o, the 'pretty pink faeiries' fancier!
If as you say 'god' and 'his angels' "intervene" in this otherwise so-called PO Universe, why have not 'he' NOR 'his angels' intervened to stop the LOSS of the documentations/texts of ALL 'his divine words' COMPLETE? Could it be that this 'mighty hand of god' suffers from terrible ARTHRITIS? So not ONLY is this 'god' of yours sadistic and 'yellow', he is also 'useless' to pathetically fooled 'followers' like YOU. Tragic, yet somehow ridiculously Funny! dadl-o the follower of the god of arthritis! Sicko AND tragic to boot, our dadl-o and his god.
Sincerely and without hate; yours,
RealityCheck.
.
dad1
28th December 2005 - 03:42 AM
QUOTE
...why have not 'he' NOR 'his angels' intervened to stop the LOSS of the documentations/texts of ALL 'his divine words' COMPLETE?
He has! It's here, and we can compare diligently the original texts, and be astounded at the accuracy! I heard that the ancient scribes counted the letters on each page, to ensure they had it right. It was quadrouple checked six ways from Sunday.
Where you been?
It is not messed up, despite the sadistic and 'yellow' claims to the contrary. Such claims are 'useless' and pathetic! Tragic, yet somehow ridiculously Funny!
Isa 51:9 - Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?
Isa 59:1 - Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: (no arthritis!)
RealityCheck
28th December 2005 - 04:24 AM
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 28 2005, 03:42 AM)
QUOTE
...why have not 'he' NOR 'his angels' intervened to stop the LOSS of the documentations/texts of ALL 'his divine words' COMPLETE?
He has! It's here, and we can compare diligently the original texts, and be astounded at the accuracy! I heard that the ancient scribes counted the letters on each page, to ensure they had it right. It was quadrouple checked six ways from Sunday.
Where you been?
It is not messed up, despite the sadistic and 'yellow' claims to the contrary. Such claims are 'useless' and pathetic! Tragic, yet somehow ridiculously Funny!
Isa 51:9 - Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?
Isa 59:1 - Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: (no arthritis!)
.
Accurate?...nothing of the sort, liar. And this yellow, arthritic and obviously biblically-insane god of yours appears to be ABSENT, dadl-o. Where is he?...he has yet to answer my challenge. Is he afraid? Has he deserted you to your sad fate because you've brought 'his' IMPOTENCE and COWARDICE into the limelight for all to see for themselves...because obviously such a god as you follow would naturally prefer to lurk in the dark shadows and get others (expendables, 'he' calls 'em) to do his dirty work? Pathetic, stupid, coward of a god, I call your 'god'. How more explicit can a challenge get? You and your god are LESS THAN NOTHING compared with the rest of the human race. Your monomania is representative of stinking baggage from a stinking past full of sadistic ignorant idiots such as yourself and your 'god'...you know, that YELLOW CUR you pray to who's too AFRAID to show his face even during so-called Xmas!...how's that for yella, dadl-o? Sad cases, you and your 'god', dadl-o.
Sincerely and without hate; yours,
RealityCheck.
.
Your fellow human (yfh)
28th December 2005 - 04:35 AM
QUOTE
with the worst logic known to man.
amok
28th December 2005 - 04:44 AM
dad1,
so sad to see someone pick the flaws of others so easily yet not be able to see their own. i think that's a sure sign of megolomania. Like it has been said here (i think this thread...it might have been another one i lose track), science is self-correcting. and to add to that phrase, religion is self-fulfilling.
The only shred of truth from any of your posts, is that the only evidence you have is your own personal faith. "Maybe", "Possibly", "Perhaps" could have would have etc. you say constantly here for scientists to think outside of the box, well if we do perhaps need to broaden some vision, then you need to think outside of your book. It seems a lot of time and effort are going into all of this, perhaps you should live it instead of preach it.
If what you say is so compelling and self evident, tell your pastor. do a bake-sale to raise some money for some honest research. Yet I somehow doubt this would ever happen...
I'm sure you have good intentions, but they are sorely misplaced.
With Much Pity,
- Amok
dad1
28th December 2005 - 05:06 AM
QUOTE
so sad to see someone pick the flaws of others so easily yet not be able to see their own. i think that's a sure sign of megolomania. Like it has been said here (i think this thread...it might have been another one i lose track), ..
Have you seen anyone about possible dementia?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| so sad to see someone pick the flaws of others so easily yet not be able to see their own. i think that's a sure sign of megolomania. Like it has been said here (i think this thread...it might have been another one i lose track), .. |
Have you seen anyone about possible dementia?
science is self-correcting. ..
So is Christianity, if we screw up, He corrects us!
QUOTE
and to add to that phrase, religion is self-fulfilling...
Add to that, I am not the religious one, you and your old age belief are!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and to add to that phrase, religion is self-fulfilling... |
Add to that, I am not the religious one, you and your old age belief are!
you say constantly here for scientists to think outside of the box, well if we do perhaps need to broaden some vision, then you need to think outside of your book.
The bible is like a window on eternity, and the Almighty, and is ever unfolding in it's truths! The Physical Only temporary universe 'box' has distinct, clear and present limits, beyond which you can never go on your own! It is also a coffin, and ends in death.
QUOTE
do a bake-sale to raise some money for some honest research. Yet I somehow doubt this would ever happen...
I think the money one could raise in a bake sale, I already have. But tell me, even if I had billions, what research could it fund that would tell me there is or is not anything besides the PO? Which back to the future ghostbuster would I hire to travel 4 billion years into the future, and tell us if the sun really did burn out? No, the mickey mouse club of present science is not up to the task!
dad1
28th December 2005 - 05:16 AM
QUOTE
....god of yours appears to be ABSENT, dadl-o. Where is he?...he has yet to answer my challenge. Is he afraid?
You are no challenge to Him. He answers His Own, nor screaming, ranting, drooling blasphemous little bigmouths! He is very present, you just are deaf dumb, and blind to Him in your present, sad state.
Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
amok
28th December 2005 - 05:38 AM
QUOTE
Add to that, I am not the religious one, you and your old age belief are!
are you saying that you are not in the least bit religions? that nothing you are talking about requires faith? amazing.
Someone can quite scripture to defend their ideals and not call themselves religious. do you think your god would be proud that you deny your religion?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Add to that, I am not the religious one, you and your old age belief are! |
are you saying that you are not in the least bit religions? that nothing you are talking about requires faith? amazing.
Someone can quite scripture to defend their ideals and not call themselves religious. do you think your god would be proud that you deny your religion?
nor screaming, ranting, drooling blasphemous little bigmouths!
To add to the above stated, if we are the religious ones how can we be blasphemous?
QUOTE
I think the money one could raise in a bake sale, I already have. But tell me, even if I had billions, what research could it fund that would tell me there is or is not anything besides the PO? Which back to the future ghostbuster would I hire to travel 4 billion years into the future, and tell us if the sun really did burn out? No, the mickey mouse club of present science is not up to the task!
then save yourself the money and get a library card. maybe there you will find at least some semblance of rational thought. then one day you can graduate from the kids section and read real books.
- Amok
dad1
28th December 2005 - 05:49 AM
QUOTE
"Add to that, I am not the religious one, you and your old age belief are!"
are you saying that you are not in the least bit religions? that nothing you are talking about requires faith? amazing.
In the sense of being a bible believer, yes. I am. In the sense of 'religious', I think not, as the word is usually applied. The people who killed Jesus were religious. He wasn't. in my opinion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"Add to that, I am not the religious one, you and your old age belief are!"
are you saying that you are not in the least bit religions? that nothing you are talking about requires faith? amazing. |
In the sense of being a bible believer, yes. I am. In the sense of 'religious', I think not, as the word is usually applied. The people who killed Jesus were religious. He wasn't. in my opinion.
To add to the above stated, if we are the religious ones how can we be blasphemous?
Because some posters have been just that here, against the Most High. Just like the religious people in Jesus' day blasphemed Him.
QUOTE
then save yourself the money and get a library card. maybe there you will find at least some semblance of rational thought. then one day you can graduate from the kids section and read real books.
Any knowledge you can get there is pretty kindergarden, compared to the secrets of the universe He gives! Look at this old age rot here, and how they can't support it, but resort to childish insults.
RealityCheck
28th December 2005 - 05:53 AM
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 28 2005, 05:16 AM)
QUOTE
....god of yours appears to be ABSENT, dadl-o. Where is he?...he has yet to answer my challenge. Is he afraid?
You are no challenge to Him. He answers His Own, nor screaming, ranting, drooling blasphemous little bigmouths! He is very present, you just are deaf dumb, and blind to Him in your present, sad state.
Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
.
Scared is 'he', your 'god'? Typical coward's response...let's his snivelling lying 'mouthpiece' make 'his' lame excuses for 'him'. Yella and absent!...the typical template for ALL these 'gods of the idiotic' nutjobbs. So...Science is in it's BOX, dadl's in his NUTSHELL, his cowardly and incompetent 'god' is MISSING IN ACTION, and all's right with the world. Nuttier by the minute, dadl-o; you are 'goner' and 'goner' the more you spew that idiocy here instead of in kindergarten 'bible class' where there are little people there who still believe in faireys at the bottom of the garden. Sad sicko-dadl-o...nicely ensconced in his comfy little nutshell. Must be mad, cos he STILL disparages science and abuses logic and STILL expects DIFFERENT outcomes here than in his other disastrous threads. Grumpy's right, dadl's actions are a perfect description of insanity. Poor sad dadl-o.
RealityCheck.
PS: DADL-O...You come here and insult science, logic and our intelligence, THEN you expect no insults in return?...another perfect description of lunacy as only YOU can produce. Sad sicko dadl-o.
dad1
28th December 2005 - 06:07 AM
QUOTE
.
Scared is 'he', your 'god'? Typical coward's response...let's his snivelling lying 'mouthpiece' make 'his' lame excuses for 'him'. Yella and absent!...the typical template for ALL these 'gods of the idiotic' nutjobbs.
He will not intervene in the free will of man, just to flick you with His finger! He'd have to end free will for everyone then, same reson He didn't stop Hitler.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
.
Scared is 'he', your 'god'? Typical coward's response...let's his snivelling lying 'mouthpiece' make 'his' lame excuses for 'him'. Yella and absent!...the typical template for ALL these 'gods of the idiotic' nutjobbs. |
He will not intervene in the free will of man, just to flick you with His finger! He'd have to end free will for everyone then, same reson He didn't stop Hitler.
Science is in it's BOX...
Indeed it is, limited, and bound by it's borders.
QUOTE
Must be mad, cos he STILL disparages science ...
No, just your falsely so called science which is assumption and belief only. Cute, how you can't muster a fight for your belief, and resort to madness. A perfect description of insanity
Ec 10:13 The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness.
RealityCheck
28th December 2005 - 06:18 AM
.
Hey MX, GS!.....how's THIS for 'turning the other cheek'? Almost 'religious', heh?
RC.
.
dad1
28th December 2005 - 06:25 AM
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 28 2005, 06:18 AM)
.
Hey MX, GS!.....how's THIS for 'turning the other cheek'? Almost 'religious', heh?
RC.
.
Pretty good, why be nasty, stick to ideas, and be nice.
amok
28th December 2005 - 07:29 AM
of course...because ideals it's what it's apparently all about.
if only i could plug those i-deals into my i-pod...now there's an idea
i think i would be a happy man then.
BTW:
Ec 10:13 The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness.
Applies to you as well dad1
- Amok
Your fellow human (yfh)
28th December 2005 - 07:40 AM
QUOTE (amok+Dec 28 2005, 07:29 AM)
BTW:
Ec 10:13 The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness.
Applies to you as well dad1
The bible is very authoritative. The bible lists off absolute commandments and claims, and often there is no explanation why the commands or laws are given. This sort of dominating way of talking and thinking rubs off on preachers and religious leaders and they tend to become very opinionated/judgemental. This leads to closed-mindedness and hateful views upon the personal freedoms of others. Its taken me a long time to start un-learning this shitt because many years of my life i was fed this sort of thing. Not fun!
birdan
28th December 2005 - 01:19 PM
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 28 2005, 02:18 AM)
PS: Hi BIRDAN!...Happy holidays! And you could be right...for that's probably the only way that particular 'microbe' will ever 'reproduce'...for I can't imagine any sane 'nubile maiden' coming within a mile of that dadl (he could always force his attentions on one, I suppose...but she would certainly commit hari kiri rather than live with the memory of that monomaniac's touch...ugh)!
RC,
And Happy Holidays to you. I'm all for ignoring Dadl - he's become somewhat of a broken record. He was interesting for a while (in a 2 headed chicken sort of way), but boring repetition trumps novelty. My best hope is that he's a 16 year old going through delayed puberty and may eventually outgrow his 'comic book' phase.
Just one question before I tune out Dadl's drivel: Regarding your Dadl-O reference, are you a big Jack Kerouac or beat generation fan?
RealityCheck
28th December 2005 - 08:26 PM
QUOTE (birdan+Dec 28 2005, 01:19 PM)
And Happy Holidays to you. I'm all for ignoring Dadl - he's become somewhat of a broken record. He was interesting for a while (in a 2 headed chicken sort of way), but boring repetition trumps novelty. My best hope is that he's a 16 year old going through delayed puberty and may eventually outgrow his 'comic book' phase.
Just one question before I tune out Dadl's drivel: Regarding your Dadl-O reference,
are you a big Jack Kerouac or beat generation fan?
Not that I know of or can recall, birdan...it's just one of those 'natural' endings for a word/name, you know?...I just changed the "1" in dad1 to "L" (to sound like 'daddle') and just add the "o" to sort of round it off phonetically, hence dadl-o (as in "daddle-o"). That's all...no other influence as far as I can tell thinking on it.
And you're right about that dadl's repetitiveness....however, THAT'S what stupid people DO, after all, and he's as wilfully stupid as they come....and for some time now I've been operating on the evidence-based scientific "working assumption" that OUR particular dadl-idjit is even MORE so, than most such!
Have a Happy and Safe New Year's, mate!
RC.
.
Grumpy
29th December 2005 - 04:03 AM
All
To return to the topic of this forum
The first written history in the middle east may be fragments of Sumarian writings from the Tigris/Euphratese area.
QUOTE
The Emergence Of Civilization In Sumer, c. 3100-2800 B.C.
By 3100 B.C. the population of Sumer had increased to the point where people were living in cities and had developed a preponderance of those elements previously noted as constituting civilization. Since these included the first evidence of writing, this first phase of Sumerian civilization, to about 28 B.C., is called the Protoliterate period.
Scribes would be at work incising clay tablets with picture signs. Some tablets might bear the impression of cylinder seals, small stone cylinders engraved with a design. Examining the clay tablets, the visitors would find that they were memoranda used in administering a temple, which was also a warehouse and workshop. Some of the scribes might be making an inventory of the goats and sheep received that day for sacrificial use; others might be drawing up wage lists. They would be using a system of counting based on the unit 60 - the sexagismal system rather than the decimal system which is based on the unit 10. It is still used today in computing divisions of time and angles.
http://history-world.org/sumeria.htm The first extensive histories are Egyptian Hierogliphs on the tombs of their kings.
Egypt
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The Emergence Of Civilization In Sumer, c. 3100-2800 B.C.
By 3100 B.C. the population of Sumer had increased to the point where people were living in cities and had developed a preponderance of those elements previously noted as constituting civilization. Since these included the first evidence of writing, this first phase of Sumerian civilization, to about 28 B.C., is called the Protoliterate period.
Scribes would be at work incising clay tablets with picture signs. Some tablets might bear the impression of cylinder seals, small stone cylinders engraved with a design. Examining the clay tablets, the visitors would find that they were memoranda used in administering a temple, which was also a warehouse and workshop. Some of the scribes might be making an inventory of the goats and sheep received that day for sacrificial use; others might be drawing up wage lists. They would be using a system of counting based on the unit 60 - the sexagismal system rather than the decimal system which is based on the unit 10. It is still used today in computing divisions of time and angles. |
http://history-world.org/sumeria.htm The first extensive histories are Egyptian Hierogliphs on the tombs of their kings.
Egypt
PREDYNASTIC PERIOD
7000 B.C. - 3050 B.C.
Keys to this period
1) Settlements were first established along the Nile River.
2)
Hieroglyphs also made their first appearance around the end of this period.Summary
Nearly 60,000 years ago the Nile River began its yearly inundation of the land along its banks, leaving behind rich alluvial soil. These areas close to the floodplain became an attractive source of food and water. In time, the climatic changes of this landscape (including periods of aridity) further served to confine human habitation to the Nile Valley, although this case was not always true. From the Chalcolithic period (the Copper age) [~4000 B.C.] into the early part of the Old Kingdom [~2685 B.C.], people apparently used an extended part of the land. In the 7000 B.C., the landscape of Egypt was hospitable and evidence of settlements from that time have been found in the low desert areas of southern, or "Upper Egypt"; remains of similar occupation have been discovered at Nubian sites in the modern Sudan. Enough pottery has been found in Upper Egyptian tombs from ~4000 BC (Predynastic period) to establish a relative dating sequence. The Predynastic period, which ended with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under one king (see Archaic Period), is generally subdivided into three parts. Each of which refers to the site at which its archaeological materials were found: Badarian, Amratian (Naqada I), and Gerzean (Naqada II and III). This period began with a 0 Dynasty, which had as many as 13 rulers, ending with Narmer (~ 3050 B.C.)
http://www.virtual-egypt.com/newhtml/timel...ynastic_txt.htmChina
QUOTE
Chinese civilization, as described in mythology, begins with Pangu, the creator of the universe, and a succession of legendary sage-emperors and culture heroes who taught the ancient Chinese to communicate and to find sustenance, clothing, and shelter. The first prehistoric dynasty is said to be Xia, from about the twentyfirst to the sixteenth century B.C. Until scientific excavations were made at early bronze-age sites at Anyang, Henan Province, in 1928, it was difficult to separate myth from reality in regard to the Xia. But since then, and especially in the 1960s and 1970s, archaeologists have uncovered urban sites, bronze implements, and tombs that point to the existence of Xia civilization in the same locations cited in ancient Chinese historical texts. At minimum, the Xia period marked an evolutionary stage between the late neolithic cultures and the typical Chinese urban civilization of the Shang dynasty.
Data as of July 1987
SOURCE: The Library of Congress - CHINA - A Country Study
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl...ntdynasties.htmThese are just three of the civilizations(and their written languages) that predate the Jewish religion(and the Garden of Eden), there are others.
Grumpy
Grumpy
29th December 2005 - 04:06 AM
All
To return to the topic of this forum
The first written history in the middle east may be fragments of Sumarian writings from the Tigris/Euphratese area.
QUOTE
The Emergence Of Civilization In Sumer, c. 3100-2800 B.C.
By 3100 B.C. the population of Sumer had increased to the point where people were living in cities and had developed a preponderance of those elements previously noted as constituting civilization. Since these included the first evidence of writing, this first phase of Sumerian civilization, to about 28 B.C., is called the Protoliterate period.
Scribes would be at work incising clay tablets with picture signs. Some tablets might bear the impression of cylinder seals, small stone cylinders engraved with a design. Examining the clay tablets, the visitors would find that they were memoranda used in administering a temple, which was also a warehouse and workshop. Some of the scribes might be making an inventory of the goats and sheep received that day for sacrificial use; others might be drawing up wage lists. They would be using a system of counting based on the unit 60 - the sexagismal system rather than the decimal system which is based on the unit 10. It is still used today in computing divisions of time and angles.
http://history-world.org/sumeria.htm The first extensive histories are Egyptian Hierogliphs on the tombs of their kings.
Egypt
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The Emergence Of Civilization In Sumer, c. 3100-2800 B.C.
By 3100 B.C. the population of Sumer had increased to the point where people were living in cities and had developed a preponderance of those elements previously noted as constituting civilization. Since these included the first evidence of writing, this first phase of Sumerian civilization, to about 28 B.C., is called the Protoliterate period.
Scribes would be at work incising clay tablets with picture signs. Some tablets might bear the impression of cylinder seals, small stone cylinders engraved with a design. Examining the clay tablets, the visitors would find that they were memoranda used in administering a temple, which was also a warehouse and workshop. Some of the scribes might be making an inventory of the goats and sheep received that day for sacrificial use; others might be drawing up wage lists. They would be using a system of counting based on the unit 60 - the sexagismal system rather than the decimal system which is based on the unit 10. It is still used today in computing divisions of time and angles. |
http://history-world.org/sumeria.htm The first extensive histories are Egyptian Hierogliphs on the tombs of their kings.
Egypt
PREDYNASTIC PERIOD
7000 B.C. - 3050 B.C.
Keys to this period
1) Settlements were first established along the Nile River.
2)
Hieroglyphs also made their first appearance around the end of this period.Summary
Nearly 60,000 years ago the Nile River began its yearly inundation of the land along its banks, leaving behind rich alluvial soil. These areas close to the floodplain became an attractive source of food and water. In time, the climatic changes of this landscape (including periods of aridity) further served to confine human habitation to the Nile Valley, although this case was not always true. From the Chalcolithic period (the Copper age) [~4000 B.C.] into the early part of the Old Kingdom [~2685 B.C.], people apparently used an extended part of the land. In the 7000 B.C., the landscape of Egypt was hospitable and evidence of settlements from that time have been found in the low desert areas of southern, or "Upper Egypt"; remains of similar occupation have been discovered at Nubian sites in the modern Sudan. Enough pottery has been found in Upper Egyptian tombs from ~4000 BC (Predynastic period) to establish a relative dating sequence. The Predynastic period, which ended with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under one king (see Archaic Period), is generally subdivided into three parts. Each of which refers to the site at which its archaeological materials were found: Badarian, Amratian (Naqada I), and Gerzean (Naqada II and III). This period began with a 0 Dynasty, which had as many as 13 rulers, ending with Narmer (~ 3050 B.C.)
http://www.virtual-egypt.com/newhtml/timel...ynastic_txt.htmChina
QUOTE
Chinese civilization, as described in mythology, begins with Pangu, the creator of the universe, and a succession of legendary sage-emperors and culture heroes who taught the ancient Chinese to communicate and to find sustenance, clothing, and shelter. The first prehistoric dynasty is said to be Xia, from about the twentyfirst to the sixteenth century B.C. Until scientific excavations were made at early bronze-age sites at Anyang, Henan Province, in 1928, it was difficult to separate myth from reality in regard to the Xia. But since then, and especially in the 1960s and 1970s, archaeologists have uncovered urban sites, bronze implements, and tombs that point to the existence of Xia civilization in the same locations cited in ancient Chinese historical texts. At minimum, the Xia period marked an evolutionary stage between the late neolithic cultures and the typical Chinese urban civilization of the Shang dynasty.
Data as of July 1987
SOURCE: The Library of Congress - CHINA - A Country Study
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl...ntdynasties.htmThese are just three of the civilizations(and their written languages) that predate the Jewish religion(and the Garden of Eden), there are others.
Grumpy
Demon77
4th January 2006 - 05:24 AM
QUOTE
Is the Bible the OLDEST book we have?, Shouldn't we START AT THE beginning?
The bible is not the oldest book, nor does it pull from the oldest writings on the planet. I cannot remember what the oldest writing on the planet is, however Grumpy did post some links to the 3 oldest civilizations and their writings.
So... Regardless of what dad1 and other biblo'maniacs think - the bible is not the oldest and may tell a tale of "creation" ... but it is simply a story told by men speaking to men.
I would say show me otherwise - but ya can't.
3ohm
5th January 2006 - 08:06 AM
Thanx to DAD1 for spicing up this topic! If it wasn’t for him, there would probably be 3 replies here instead of 50! I’m sure he’s discovered a lot of answers and maybe some new questions to HIS perception of life. Sometimes it’s easy to forget how powerful and domineering the Christian doctrine can be, but at least he’s here fearlessly trying to expand his understanding!
For those who have never played BROKEN TELEPHONE: You take a group of kids (lets say 10 kids) and place them in a line, you then whisper a message in the ear of the first kid and then he must whisper the message to the next kid. Then the next one whispers the message to next kid and so on and so on…… By the time you get the message back from the LAST kid, it’s always distorted! Words have been added or left out; even the meanings have been interpreted and adapted according to each individual’s perception. The last guy’s interpretation is normally VERY different from the original message and so everyone has a good laugh.
Now imagine if you added a couple of language barriers to the broken telephone! If some kids had to interpret the message in one language and then try to convey the same meaning in ANOTHER language; how different would the final message be???
This is basically how knowledge has been handed down from culture to culture, generation to generation for 1000s of years!
Like most people, I too was a mental prisoner of Christianity and its ‘DO ONLY AS WE SAY’ policy. But as I became more curious about other philosophies I started to see that religion was around for a good 5000 years BEFORE Christianity! So if the creator of the universe needed to give man any instructions or guide lines to life; surely he would have done it around the same time as when he gave man the ability to understand and communicate these instructions?
The Babylonians and Sumerians have left us at least 500 000 clay tablets with knowledge and information dating back 1000’s of years. Even the pyramid texts of Egypt have wisdom dating back to 5000BC! It would seem that the Creator of the universe created Egyptians, Sumerians and Babylonians loooooong BEFORE he created the Christians and the Jews! So LOGICALLY, one would assume that any important messages would have been left with them and that they would have preserved it for all mankind to know!
But instead; we fear their knowledge, treat it with suspicion and call it Pagan, Occult, Esoteric and Satanic! Isn’t it amazing how in the bible; ‘god’ is ready to kill everyone who ISNT an Israelite as if they were created by someone else?
The FIRST University on earth was in Babylon (Baghdad) and the greatest Library was in Egypt (Alexandria) but I guess they were all just a BUNCH OF PAGANS!
Your fellow human (yfh)
5th January 2006 - 09:59 AM
Egyptian religion was about as advanced as egyptian science.
But realy, i am seeking spiritual enlightenment.
Post some links to sumerian, babylonian and egyptian religios teachings.
Please and talk you. =)
3ohm
5th January 2006 - 02:49 PM
How advanced was Egyptian Architectual Science? Or Egyptian Cosmology? I bet there were alot LESS THEORIES and ALOT more understanding!
If you want enlightenment; then the best place to start is with the 'MESSENGER OF GOD' THOTH (Tehuti)! You can search for the Emerald Tablets of Thoth, the Books of Thoth, the HERMETICA, the Books of Hermes etc....
The Greeks studied in Egypt and brought the teachings of Thoth to Greece as the teachings of 'Hermes the messenger god'. The Romans then introduced the Greek Hermes to their people as 'Mercury the god of wisdom'!
The Babylonian and Sumer Religions revolved around ENKI and ENLIL as the ANNUNAKI (those who from heaven to earth came) who were the slave masters of the humans! There is alot of information about gene splicing, the creation of earth etc... but NOT REALLY applicable as a philosophy for daily use. (maybe for some people it is?)
Anyway; here are some links: sitchin.com
talkorigins.org
answeringenesis.org
sumerian.org
akhet.co.uk
ancienttexts.org
osirisnet.net
halexandria.org
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
