Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!
Offline Here is something I find quite puzzling. If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures, how did our languages come into existance? The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules. So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules? THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make. Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level. But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas.
How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language? You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language. The same problem exists for creating a written language.
Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem. Why don't we all speak the same language?
Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy. Why did we evolve to have this feature? What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box? I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.
Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence.
OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being. Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah. Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth. This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account. They infused their own language and culture into the original story.
Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.
- Login to post comments
Offline danatemporary wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:TWD39 wrote:So I provide research and answers, and then what? Oh let's see, you call me stupid. Insult my faith. Offer no counter-argument with supporting cites or evidence. Or you simply bury me with more questions and completely ignore my points. Atheists don't get a free pass either. At some point, you have to BACK UP your bold statements.You do the honest research into primary sources and then you show how it supports your position. When we discuss those primary sources and your interpretation of the physical evidence you found in your research. Argumentation is not evidence. Repetition of the bible is not evidence. Making it up as you go along (e.g., there is no trinity there are three separate gods) is not a response.
Descriptions such a "bold" are immaterial. Perhaps you should specifically state exactly what assertion you think needs further support. Such things cannot be things which are challenges to the claims you have made. When you make a claim it is up to you to produce the evidence for it. It is NOT incumbent upon those who demand your evidence to produce evidence you are wrong. The game is NEVER played that way.
Twd39 wrote:The response was to attack wikipedia as a reliable source of ANY information. Even more ridiculous, when I produced a bible archaeology website, it was suddenly approved because it had an article about women's role in the Bible that could be spun in favor of atheists.
And the list goes on and on....
Listen TWD39:
Have you ever gone over to Wikipedia (and no I am not going to cut and paste the Wikipedia article, to save your wrist all that wear and tear) and read the article on 'Yahweh (a Wikipedia article)"? As usually you distort what was said. BeyondSaving called a 'tertiary' source. In a twisted way of thinking, you imagine there is some great repository of Atheist documents, which tickles me in a special way. If you'd rather we go by wikipedia. Then you're going to have a time explaining Yahweh according to one of their two articles on Wikipedia. Can you make out what is wrong? I doubt you could. First Off, etymological is all wrong. Yaw and the tetragrammaton & Yahu are not the same as Yamm Yam and Yahm. which is hard to miss in the names of many bodies of water, but you have to have actually gazed at transliterations, to have even noticed. The typeology is all wrong. Yahweh according to the Old Testament is neither a body of water, nor a multi-headed serpentine dragon/snake. Fore it to be so violates what is found in the Hebrew bible. Though the Psalms speaks of one, it is not Yahweh. If it were all Atheists would have found out about it through the grapevine, thanks to modern technology. More importantly, Scholarship makes no claim to this, people having spent years working on the translation of texts primary, missed this. They must have been ripped off their heads for the last couple of decades. Funny I dont remember any needing liver transplants from the journeys. They normally live to a rip old age. Somehow they missed it. When the spend years debating who's translation is the best english version in their papers. But, Who am I to know. So, What's the story; how did it get into the submission ? Answer: Someone with a little knowledge thought they were cleaver, as a result Yahweh is the son of El; and Yahweh is found in the Baal cycle (look it up). To be precise their is a difference in the term El and how it is used in Hebrew, one its' uses is as a general term for deity. The other is a Canaanite deity. Anyhow But this is not found in the relevant materials. Now the article does not say as much. But, You can insinuate something in language while not coming out in saying this. If they are right then contact the International Press extra extra Yahweh has been found among the Canaanite Pantheon. The ironic joke is you are defending Wikipedia and they are notorious for these types of errors. All of which are not in your favor, by the way. You'd have a system-wide negative reaction, while other's disinterest finds their errors harmless. Because they consider the source. In their article they cite the Bible passage: Deuteronomy 32:8–9, in which El, as the head of the divine assembly, gives each member of the divine family a nation of his own, "according to the number of the divine sons": Israel is the portion of Yahweh. Paraphrase The Most High gave Jacob to Yahweh. That's not even touching on the consort you find in the article (which is answered in Mark Smith's book). So, Do you want to defend Wikipedia now ?
And how does this disprove bible archaelogy again? Is wikipedia 100% wrong in every article because apparently this is your argument.
What disproves "biblical archaeology" is the conclusion first research on which it is based. Meanwhile, wikipedia's entry on Yahweh is rife with errors. Do you defend wikipedia in general or just when you like it?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Look no further. People can catch it on the tail-end
Something is being lost in translation, I can tell
.. apparently this is ..
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
. . . . . . . . . 
Caption Reads : In case Of Unhappiness (break glass gently),.
Look at that face you can't stay mad at that face (See: Image)
(( If mods have to Edit, careful it is legible, K? ))
- Login to post comments
Offline so in TWD's eyes:
No provenance + vague or zero descriptions = proof.
Explains why TWD believes the Bible.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
What a different thread this most likely had turned out to be if TWD39 had posted the transcript and started at that point in asking questions. To whatever end that would have been. One of the little 'What IFs' of life I think :¬
Yet animals have a capability to love and nurture their offspring, protect each other and display a lot of emotions that some people ascribe to being exclusively human emotion.
Granted TWD, an animal may not ponder over a philosophical position, a scientific find or things of that sort. But the subjective natures of right and wrong are not always clear cut.
The only things that I would posit are "right and wrong" involve direct intentional harm. Deliberate acts of cruelty, rape, torture, and all the other things that have no value or merit to them except to inflict harm on others.
As far as the religious definition of right and wrong. I would have to disagree. It was not my former religion that prevents me from rape and murder.
And I don't think TWD that your religion is preventing you from committing rape and murder either. You don't rape and murder, because your not some sort of twisted psychopath that would do so.
I put forth the claim that a person is not held back from psychopathic behavior because of a religious faith. It has never prevented people in the past from doing sociopathic things. Any more than a person's Atheism contributes to their sociopathic behavior. People's behavior occurs for whatever reason, screwed up childhood, messed up brain chemistry and what have you.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
You asked for someone to "tell me in detail exactly how language with rules and syntax was formed".
I linked you to a book titled "Biological foundations and origin of syntax".
I guess I shouldn't have bothered.
Anonymouse wrote:
The section in the book, I was able to preview, has a phrase I read reminding me of something my pet cat does. My current cat was orphaned at a very young age. In lower& higher mammals their is a pre-programmed drive to imprint onto the mother. Imprinting provides animals with information. Well, I became the mommy cat, in her case. The odd thing is my cat makes a very non-catlike sound, hard to describe DUE TO it being a very melodic like Judy Collins (folk-singer) sound; it is a cross between a ou' sound and a hmm' sound but more bird song like. Her sound is undoubtedly mimicing a human sound (as best she can). She always uses the sound, when directed at me. It would have been interesting to know what would have happened if my cat had the necessary vocal apparatus being raised as she was. Anyhow.
As I went to Google books, and tried to find the title "Biological foundations and origin of syntax". I happened to notice the time, in less than 17 mins. I was able to find the subsection of the book that had to do with "Vocal learning", from their 'Preview section' . . . An helpful Puzzle piece -
Uploaded with ImageShack.us ...
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
TWD will just channel Behe again and this will also "not be good enough".
USC 14.23.7[b]
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
You can put your faith where the sun don't shine. You put it up front for scrutiny. You get what you asked for. For the record you have provided nothing which would be considered "research" outside of high school. You bible carries no weight whatsoever in this discussion regardless of your faith in the parts of it you like. You recite it complete with its magical tales and yet you do not like it being called myth when the magic makes it myth by inspection.
Atheists are not asking for a pass. But the opening assumption is always that there is only physical evidence. You make claims beyond the physical evidence. You claim there is a god yet you have not even established only one and which one and established an authoritative source for your knowledge about it. Do not bother trying unless you have something entirely new and never tried as all previous attempts have been abysmal failures despite the opinion of believers.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Considering atheists most all started out as believers unless they all go the Christianity you folks are still losing.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
This to directed squarely at TWD (this not not directed towards Anonymous, at any point). In saying this I admit we are starting to get into territory of things that should remain left unsaid. But, The exchange with the visiting Troll in trollville recently showed a more typical exchange of you are being dishonest, the retort : no, you are being dishonest being leveled, generally speaking. Shows where this stands out from that. This is taken on another nature. Specifics are necessary to point to, TWD39. In context this in not as your typical exchange, but more very specific to a statement that was made. BTW, Having to sit down and negotiate getting participation and follow-ups in your own thread, would test the patience of Job. It is a joy to learn from the insights of others, but if you insist on making every 'blasphemy', a personal slight this will only lead to a worse experience; and us having to stop once again to address yet another set of issues that could never have anything to do with either learning or the subject in a million years. Which leads to another thing better left unsaid, Fore it cannot be good for relations but needs reminding is to be very direct with U TWD39. And bluntly ask, What are you playing at ? Most of the parts of the thread were best briefly highlighted already by Jaberwocky, so I need not. But, What do you make of this ? Check out part of an early exchange:
In a more specific statement. Any overall impression (and it's only an impression) is this an attack the scientific method itself or if that is over stating it, then present a problem where observable data is scare to none in some attempt to (critically emphasis) score points in establishing the "fallibility of man's theories", in her mind. Does anyone else get this impression, I am being conservative in my statement, but the stated goals are not clear. Obviously more agenda driven than an 'honest' inquiry, that can be highlighted throughout. Motivations I wouldn't want to take a stab at. Most of the follow-up statements and especially questions from TWD39 are an attack on the scientific method by their very nature. As already stated, By the way, don't think Jaberwocky is the one being lazy in this insistence (personal opinion). In a couple of days I will be reminding TWD39 about baal again. Maybe, It should have been left unsaid. I could set out a case for this but it seems so obvious, 'why bother' ? Remember, will you TWD, that you are allowed to disagree at any point. I tried to be honest with my impressions. Almost all of your questions are agenda driven. Are they merely that or would you like to know something ? I only risk saying it because, airing it out might be an inevitability. Though I am uncomfortable with the he said, she said nature this has turned into. And would rather have said nothing. I know you spoke of righteous anger, and I am inclined to believe you are still pretty sore. Although unlike AE, you remain unclear about what exactly. As typical with your reactions, you fail to realize there are others who are apparently upset by now too.
OP has listed no less than three separate areas of inquiring in (TWD's )OP remarks. I would like to know what the number of theories are that TWD could even name and describe?
Was the text closely examined in the OP first inquiry ? Did the original poster fail to approach this in another way, thereby leaving it in this condition. It's has if she miss every opportunity along the way. Perhaps, TWD could touch upon how this OP was framed at the beginning of this Thread ? Curious, about why the first language was omitted in the OP remarks for that matter. No attempt was made to theorizes why we have a "language instinct" or "language organ," the physical representation of which is as yet unidentified within the brain, that uses what many consider a universal grammar, a natural foundation of rules or laws upon which any language can be learned, including sign languages. As a result of this innate quality, the ability to apply even complicated grammatical rules arises spontaneously in a similarly puzzling way. Getting back to the words in the account(s). With strictly Arab accounts (not found in the Bible), they'll either suggest, that God gave or taught language to the first human man. Stunningly, The Genesis account gives no indication of this whatsoever. The Bible's account says simply 'the man gave names to' all the animals, man made names. At Babel, where God is losing patience with Man, no attempt was asked as to what would have be necessary for language become to so radically estranged? Nor even the order in which these things are to have taken place, according to the account itself language was to have changed remember the order of things in the account. By the account touching on Babel, she could have pointed to surprising structures, like those found in 50 of the world's language families, forming a yet unexplained mechanism, are predominantly oriented transverse to the primary flow direction, that extend for much larger distances in many of the distinct language families. Not mentioned by TWD. Naturally in an agenda, wouldn't you want to try to find support to these idea(s)? Furthermore, the textual indications are that God use an unknown mechanism, and apparently unexplained mechanism to bring about a rapid hyper-evolutionary change and distribution in an existing language leading to unintelligibility (if you will), there was not an attempt to establish a basis-line for the rate of change. If she had, that is a simply baseline is beyond high-school and more expected too. Later On, What was found was an eventual agreement that language does evolve, stopping there. Dismissing all theories in the initial remarks, cannot be considered bright. To the contrary of anything that makes sense, it's almost as if instead comments were made excluded efforts to allow even a sympathetic 'theory' to help lead credence to the account's suggestion (,instead the OP originally takes a different route in more emphasis of a cultural nature). Cultural aspect can be answered to a fairly large degree if you look at field researcher's observations (the massive transcript contains some telling remarks, about observations in field work). But what was she missing ? Throughout, what was going on with all of this thread ? Or with Twd ? Not a direction one would expected if you examine the text sources more closely. Instead a dismissal of any theory ? What were you even thinking ?
When you've got "Magic man done it" who needs research and thought?
Apparently we've all failed TWD in one way or another. I mean, Look at the poor state of this thread ?
Yeah - all that nasty reason and those pesky theories lying just everywhere.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Yes, this is from someone who says I offer no evidence when he/she offers no evidence that the Bible is myth and magic tales. Thousands of changed lives through faith in Jesus Christ suggest otherwise.
A ten foot tall balloon becomes flat as a pancake when you take out all the hot air.
Love those fallacies, don't you? Lots of gullible people believing something doesn't make it true.
Until you can provide evidence of God's existence (not crap that faith healers and televangelists sell to the "faithful"
you're the only one spouting the hot air.
It sure is a good thing you ignore me for noble purposes instead of simply being frightened almost to death.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Any non-religious, and even many religious, highschool science textbook is sufficient to refute the bible. That you haven't yet read one is no surprise.
Advanced course in refuting the bible are:
History, geology, biology, chemistry, psychology, physics, astronomy, quantum physics, evolution, and the list is really to long for me to type it all out.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
In a fit of TWDry disinterest. Yeah, Dana, I thought I'd receive an oblique pass to the lake of fire in response to my cheek-tongue but it seems there's even a punch in the mouth shoehorned into dear TWD's reply.
I guess you can't event mildly insult the god people without a threat of a violence. Funny, because TWD might be a nice person though it's hard to know. There's a rigidity to christian brains that allows them to embrace moral inconsistency.
All this reminds me again of nonstampcollector's skit of jesus knocking on the thorny door of a human heart and telling the 'soul' therein he'd come to save them from what he was going to do to them if they did not allow him to save them.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
So this thread in summary:
TWD makes assertion before researching (or after researching, but not accepting anything that he reads). People make very easy, and valid counter-arguments. TWD continues to assert. TWD provides zero evidence to support how he thinks languages became, and why a naturalistic explanation could be problematic. Hilarious looking at that thread title now.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
evil atheists. Here's your material proof. Look. It's huge.
Lol! Yup, must've given god a huuuuge fit.
He'll get this one too. He's cookin' some sort of plan up. Unless it's made of iron, like those chariots he is so afraid of.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
Translation - I just need to mock Christians. I need it so badly so I can feel good and superior about my non-belief.
But TWD, you make it so easy to mock you when you adamantly refuse to bring anything of substance to the discussion. At least you didn't equate yourself to God this time.
Seriously, though, keep "defending" your faith - I need the laughs.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
So are you going to read that book, yes or no ?
I highly doubt it. First off, How'd he/she free herself from the pseudo¬CROSS TWD39 has erected, long enough to head over to a bookstore ? Furthermore, Twd39 is the laziest person that has ever come here and proves that time and time again. Where is the research that is expected of TWD ? So, There is always that to consider. Apparently, TWD expects others to do the work for her. Perhaps, If you went over to TWD's house and read the book to TWD. Maybe then . .
Well, that's a shame. Especially since she seems to respect academic qualifications (or at least she does in her new NDE thread), so why she wouldn't want to read a book written by professors of linguistics and biology that addresses the very question she brings up, seems a little strange.
I refuse to take up my valuable time with your "research" when any point or cites I make is completely ignored, and then you arrogantly claim that I never presented anything.
For example, I argued that the lack of extra-biblical references to the Exodus could very well be due to the fact that the Egyptians weren't known to document embarrassing defeats, an argument that apologists and other theists on this site share with me. It was ignored.
I presented a laundry list of biblical archaelogical finds referenced on wikipedia. Instead of proving to me while all these finds do not support the Bible, the response was to attack wikipedia as a reliable source of ANY information. Even more ridiculous, when I produced a bible archaeology website, it was suddenly approved because it had an article about women's role in the Bible that could be spun in favor of atheists.
And the list goes on and on....
Theists of this stripe never like being confronted with reality. It shows how much they are wasting their lives.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Uhm, it's not my "research". It was done by a professor of linguistics and a professor of biology.
You asked for someone to "tell me in detail exactly how language with rules and syntax was formed". I linked you to a book titled "Biological foundations and origin of syntax".
If your time is too "valuable" to read a book that directly addresses your own question, then why ask the question in the first place ?
Except for those who proved that it didn't support the Bible and who questioned the researcher's methods because they went in with the conclusion that the Bible must be right instead of following the evidence where it leads. You know, like you.
The fact that you don't bother to read the sites you bring up just shows you to be foolish.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Wit...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
OFF-TOPIC (why do you insist upon taking everyone on the merry lanes of Off-Topic land) ?
Re:: What does the Exodus have to do w/ anything ??? As you insist on being in Off-Topic land . .
. . extra-biblical references to the Exodus could very well be due . . BTW, Before I say anything; That is not even close to being On-Topic
Clearly you are working off 'your knowledge' which is treating everyone with the greatest disdain (including believers and christians too). I m glad the board can have a sense of humour about it. You expect a good faith agreement to be kept when you indiscriminately treat all with such disdain ?
I'm sorry did we need to go over the relevant passages ? Is it necessary to do so, I take it ? Because the board will, dont think we wont either.
Allow me to show TWD something that might not seem relevant. But may well have been, however unlikely, puzzlingly as it might first seem except for the Sumerian account, as follows :
This is citing an instance where the Hebrews were familiar with many of the myths and religions surrounding them. The Amorites were only regionally significant for approx. 100 yrs. Likewise, If the ancient Israelites had no knowledge of the Amorite gods, how could I cite a similar example as to the worship of a sumerian deity ? You dont know ? Then perhaps you should read the following passage :
Amorite's baal, "And they built the high places of Baal (actually the Amurru, Amorite Storm god, a different 'baal'), which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin"
{{How is it I knew that this is another 'baal' when I am reading it in english ? Out of sheer habit I looked it up. Maybe something you should give a try to.}}
It's always about someone else, isnt it ? Care to take a stab at that ??? Drop the pretense and any falsehood by such, lady. You're just giving the impression of being quite lazy (lazy) . .
-
I remember specifically responding to that post. I asked you exactly which find on the laundry list provided evidence that the bible is 100% true. At best it proves that some of the same cities existed and some of the same people existed. Which is hardly enough to prove the extraordinary claims of the bible. I pointed out that many myths are based on real people, real places and real events. If you could prove that Jesus Christ existed and was crucified, that does not prove he rose from the dead or was the son of god. But as usual, when confronted with a real argument you ran away and changed the subject.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
And that's the classic reply from atheists. My response was that if you applied that same level of scrutiny to any ancient historical event, it becomes potential fiction. Yet, you don't question the history of other cultures like the Egyptians, do you?
The Bible holds a central truth that exists throughout the Bible. I find it harder to believe the the work is a product of a select group of fiction writers who conspired throughout time to deceive people with a book of tales. Why display the great heroes and Israelities in such a miserable negative light if that was the case?
Frankly, I'm not looking to prove supernatural events to you. It's impossible to prove something supernatural occured to a skeptic. You only cling to the scientific method as the sole measure of "proof". Science can only measure where exists in the natural world. By it's definitiion, supernatural events are outside the realm of the natural. Just because they don't form fit to scientific measurements doesn't equate to proof that the entire Bible is a book of myths.
i seem to recall telling you the exact same thing numerous times in this thread.
having majored in classical studies, i can tell you--check that, have told you--we question damn near all of it. any person, atheist or otherwise, who doesn't is either ignorant or uninterested.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I question a great many things I am told about history. I also remember listing somewhere, I can't remember if it was this thread or another one, a long list of modern myths that are often taught as history even though the evidence we have suggests they never happened. The Egyptians are a good example, for years the assumption has been that the pyramids were primarily built through slave labor, however we now know that assumption is false.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I think it's quite possible the people who wrote the Bible genuinely believed it was true. However, this (as I imagine you already know) does not MAKE the Bible true.
I don't think anyone has claimed everything in the Bible is false.
No, if there is a way to measure the supernatural--science still applies. And, if there is no such way, how can we know the supernatural even exists?
If what you say about the Bible is true why do you treat some pieces as allegory and some as literal? Science says nothing about the supernatural, true. However, the supernatural also says nothing about the supernatural - this is why it is pretty much identical with the non-existent.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Yes, let's all just set aside our rational thinking and just dive right in to the stories of the bible; and consider those stories to be factual and scientific.
Your lack of logic leads me to believe you were on these forums previously under a different handle.
Oh now, what was your name.... I'll need to do some research.
TWD39 has done no research thus far. But, Somehow found the time to start an entirely new thread.
Well, I would guess the only research done on their part is to read the bible, which is a major flaw in itself.
On another note, I find constant similarities between posters of this caliber. I get confused and see the different handle and think automatically that the writing styles must be the same person with different handles. It could be true that since so many theists are constantly trying to use the bible as a source of scientific fact they tend to fall in to similar posts and similar writing styles. So I'll retract my previous statement that they might be a previous poster with a different handle.
Immediately . . Dont get me started on immediately . .
"And that's the classic reply from atheists. My response was that if you applied that same level of scrutiny to any ancient historical event, it becomes potential fiction. Yet, you don't question the history of other cultures like the Egyptians, do you? "
I have called history a giant black hole of missing information and misinformation at least twice in the last 6 months alone.
I'm mildly amused to notice I don't actually read TWD's responses anymore. I skim them looking for a response to me, and that's it. I actually caught this statement by reading Beyond and Iwbiek's posts. Go figure.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Listen TWD39:
Have you ever gone over to Wikipedia (and no I am not going to cut and paste the Wikipedia article, to save your wrist all that wear and tear) and read the article on 'Yahweh (a Wikipedia article)"? As usually you distort what was said. BeyondSaving called a 'tertiary' source. In a twisted way of thinking, you imagine there is some great repository of Atheist documents, which tickles me in a special way. If you'd rather we go by wikipedia. Then you're going to have a time explaining Yahweh according to one of their two articles on Wikipedia. Can you make out what is wrong? I doubt you could. First Off, etymological is all wrong. Yaw and the tetragrammaton & Yahu are not the same as Yamm Yam and Yahm. which is hard to miss in the names of many bodies of water, but you have to have actually gazed at transliterations, to have even noticed. The typeology is all wrong. Yahweh according to the Old Testament is neither a body of water, nor a multi-headed serpentine dragon/snake. Fore it to be so violates what is found in the Hebrew bible. Though the Psalms speaks of one, it is not Yahweh. If it were all Atheists would have found out about it through the grapevine, thanks to modern technology. More importantly, Scholarship makes no claim to this, people having spent years working on the translation of texts primary, missed this. They must have been ripped off their heads for the last couple of decades. Funny I dont remember any needing liver transplants from the journeys. They normally live to a rip old age. Somehow they missed it. When the spend years debating who's translation is the best english version in their papers. But, Who am I to know. So, What's the story; how did it get into the submission ? Answer: Someone with a little knowledge thought they were cleaver, as a result Yahweh is the son of El; and Yahweh is found in the Baal cycle (look it up). To be precise their is a difference in the term El and how it is used in Hebrew, one its' uses is as a general term for deity. The other is a Canaanite deity. Anyhow But this is not found in the relevant materials. Now the article does not say as much. But, You can insinuate something in language while not coming out in saying this. If they are right then contact the International Press extra extra Yahweh has been found among the Canaanite Pantheon. The ironic joke is you are defending Wikipedia and they are notorious for these types of errors. All of which are not in your favor, by the way. You'd have a system-wide negative reaction, while other's disinterest finds their errors harmless. Because they consider the source. In their article they cite the Bible passage: Deuteronomy 32:8–9, in which El, as the head of the divine assembly, gives each member of the divine family a nation of his own, "according to the number of the divine sons": Israel is the portion of Yahweh. Paraphrase The Most High gave Jacob to Yahweh. That's not even touching on the consort you find in the article (which is answered in Mark Smith's book). So, Do you want to defend Wikipedia now ?
And how does this disprove bible archaelogy again? Is wikipedia 100% wrong in every article because apparently this is your argument.
You distort everything dont you?!?? I said previously in my statement about 1/5 of it is wrong. Dont put words in my mouth. You have a quote function use it.
Comment ; No Reply
Let's see how your winning personality & ways with distorting things have played out with the board, now you're on the line so to speak.
Confession is good for the Soul . . .
Re :: Perhaps if TWD39 can feel morally superior, then maybe we can get back..
These are misc notes and quotes I had on my PC from this Thread and do not tie into the confessions as such.
Notes I had on my computer of quotes from this Thread (in no particular order) :
That word again? How does it keep coming up again and again? No, not the word 'superior'.
And deep down inside, you know you are not worthy of this Thread's topic.
Worst thing Ex-minister ever said to TWD was he/she was an A-hole.
Worst thing BeyondSaving ever said to TWD was he/she was being an A-hole.
Worse thing that ThunderJones ever said to TWD was he/she was a bastard (in direct reply to the sleeps with dogs remark)
From the 1st Thread
No comment
You (TWD) have failed to earn anyone's respect, with your no effort (laziness). You have held almost everyone on this board indiscriminately with a vile contempt, while simultaneously refusing to put in any effort whatsoever, to a thread you introduced. Been given weeks if necessary in answering.
You said it sister. Yes, Ditto Excuse after excuse.
Worst thing I ever said to TWD is he/she was being tedious and Is unworthy of this actual Topic! And Including he/she is redefining cultic-mentality and the word 'lazy', which is more of an sad observation
Worse thing Harley ever said to TWD was he didn't give a flying f*** after a irritating remark and calling him/her a 'Dumb-azz'. What for ? For not even bothering to read his own submission/Link (in this Thread).
Jabberwocky said TWD's thoughts were 'garbage' more in TWD's first Thread.
Worst thing AE ever said about TWD was she was a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger and a narcissistic arsehole
. . .
That I did not look up. I am sure it was bad.
We already mentioned previously.
{About the remark quoted itself. Not sure if I said this or meant to say it. Allow me to say it here: Atheists and the bible are in agreement about where language began. Answer: With Man}
'Baal Reminder, got to get that in . .
(Worst thing Dana said mentioned above).
Now . . Was there anything I may have missed ? Yes, I did not go through 3/4 of the old 1st Thread So Undoubtedly I missed some.
Now would you like me to go through your first Thread and see what you said TWD ? Or get back to answering ?
I myself am having to mention 'baal' before I ask; as a pre-reminder. Almost like those automated e-mails sent as a remind that you'll be receiving an email. Funny I never had to do-that with anyone ever before. Oh, The many confessions of an Atheist board. Now I know I feel better.
p.s.-Again, If TWD39 can feel morally superior, then maybe we can get back