New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

[funkstar]

If god made us in his image and gave us intelligence and put us in this huge universe surely you should be using these 'gifts' as much as possible, to think for yourself and to explore and understand the world around us.

'Talents' (rather than 'gifts') would have been particularly suitable, here.

 

[spidergoat]

Spidergoat, your fossil comment is as worthless as a male nipple! I never referred to the “eggshells” as fossils - ever!

Now as far as the radiological dating on the pollen and seeds goes, carbon 14 only has a half life that is equal to roughly 5,700 years. But your article did not specify, nor can I find it anywhere else on the Internet that if even pollen and seed testing were used. Additionally, I will also tell you that all carbon dating results that range over the 6,000 year mark can be refuted. As much study as I’ve done in this field... for every result there are always several other explanations. Additionally I will flat out tell you that carbon dating is an imperfect science! There are several good reasons for why things are dated with exaggerating dates.

Firstly, geologist know that the ENTIRE earth was once completely covered by “marine flood sedimentation” (salt water from the sea) consisting of marine fossils which are found in all rock strata (whether you want to believe this water came from the beginning of earths creation or from Noah‘s Great Flood). This being the case, rocks that are exposed to water for a length of time can cause the elements to leak out do to solubility. Such as salts of uranium and other radioactive elements which are quite capable of dissolving in water, making all the age measurements flat-out USELESS!

False. Certain areas contain marine fossils because the ocean once covered them, not because of a catastrophic flood. The patterns of fossils reveals things like mud tracks and evidence of the former ecosystem, not what we would expect in a chaotic flood like situation. There is also no evidence of flood debris in ocean sediments around the world, which should also be the case.

Radio carbon dating is able to measure dates to 70,000 years! So you don't know what you are talking about.

Additionally, these fragments were found in a cave. There were no ocean sediments.

 

[Anita Meyer]

False. Certain areas contain marine fossils because the ocean once covered them, not because of a catastrophic flood. The patterns of fossils reveals things like mud tracks and evidence of the former ecosystem, not what we would expect in a chaotic flood like situation. There is also no evidence of flood debris in ocean sediments around the world, which should also be the case.

Spidergoat, I am still waiting for you to say something intelligent. Well at least you are stringing words together.

The Bible accurately tells us that G-d was the one who not only made the waters, but separated them. Genesis 1:6-10 - And G-d said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So G-d made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. G-d called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. And G-d said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. G-d called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And G-d saw that it was good.

Additionally (and again), there is ample evidence of a Great Flood! This includes see creature fossils that are found high above ocean level. This was obviously due to flooding over the continents. Plenty of shell are found on high mountains. There is also plenty of evidence in the rapid catastrophically destruction and burial of animals and plants. This also includes the rapid deposits of sediment layers found all over the world, along with evidences of rapid or no erosion between rock strata.

Radio carbon dating is able to measure dates to 70,000 years! So you don't know what you are talking about.

Again, petrified rock can not be dated, it contains no carbon. The eggshells were petrified! Radio carbon dating is also pure bupkis, I’ve explained this numerous times before… it is an imperfect science. Additionally, the rules keep changing with this science and is continually being revised. Are you aware that helium was dated in granite rock and found to be 6,000 years old.

Now uranium is a heavy element that breaks down into lead and it also produces helium at the same time. The uranium is called the “parent element” and the lead and helium are the “daughter elements”. Radioisotope dating of lead is analyzed to be millions/billions of years old, but miraculously when we measure the helium it gives us a completely different date for the age of the earth of ONLY 6,000 YEARS (which fits perfectly into the Biblical time span). Perhaps we have been measuring the wrong clock! All this time radioisotope dating has been analyzing the “lead” in granite which estimates in the millions of years, however the “helium” gives us a reading of only 6,000 years.

Additionally, these fragments were found in a cave. There were no ocean sediments.

I bet if Stevie Wonder were there he could find some.

Hey, where’s your sidekick Dywyddyr? Did the aliens remove his anal probe?

 

[arfa brane]

Anita, you shouldn't make statements about something you obviously have very little understanding of. You seem to have a rather poor grasp of the fossilization process.

Why do you think seashells are fossils after a certain number of years; you keep banging on about 5,500 years as if this is some kind of magic number, it isn't. If a seashell is buried in sand for 6000 years, does that mean it becomes fossilized? (the answer is no, it depends on the environment, it needs water to be present, and quite a few other things).

So you are just guessing, aren't you? You really have little idea what a fossil is, do you?
You haven't actually studied any of the "science" you keep dismissing, either, right?

But you don't think it's important to know what you're talking about, you want to sell your book instead?

 

[spidergoat]

A flood might waft marine creatures into places other than marine habitats, but they would not cause those habitats to become established long term in those locations! What we find are fossilized ecosystems, not just shells, so there was no flood. You would not find tropical marine environments on the tops of mountains, even if there was enough water on the planet to submerse them. The bible does not count as evidence, since it's fiction.

 

[Anita Meyer]

don’t give me that hoopla that I don’t know what I‘m talking about! What I do know is that things can petrify rather quickly!

If fact wood can be petrified in one week (one can get the chemical ingredients for tuning wood into petrified rock which is nothing more than silicon and aluminum compounds). The chemical components used to artificially petrify wood can also be found in natural conditions such as around volcanoes and sedimentary rock and its possible for natural petrification to occur rapidly by these processes.

 

[spidergoat]

Yeah, your brain didn't take long to turn to stone either.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I don’t have to worry about providing evidences of G-d since I’ve already done a superior job at that all through this entire thread.

The easiest person to deceive is yourself. No one else thinks you've made your case.

d. This can be substantiated quite well by just reading through all my posts in this thread.

You can't provide evidence or reason when I ask you directly, why should I think you've managed any better when other people ask you other questions?

My criteria is evidence. Not heresay, interpretations, misrepresentations of science and certainly not bible quotes, it has no authority to non-believers and so it cannot be used to convince non-believers.

See, your gamming on the premises that most people don’t go back and read through things

I think you're projecting.

that you can sway them (or reroute them) with your current posting into your secular world view.

I'll clarify something, since its a common misconception :

The title 'atheist' means a person does not believe in the claims of gods. Theism and atheism are positions of believe, not knowledge. Gnosticism and agnosticism are positions of claims knowledge. I don't believe that any claims about deities have met their burden of proof, including the claim there is no God. Therefore I'm atheist, as is anyone who says anything other than "Yes" to the question "Do you believe in deities?", including people who say "I don't know what I believe". Most atheists are agnostic atheists, in that they don't believe any of the claims of religion have met their burden of proof but they do not assert there are definitely no gods. I am an agnostic atheist but at the extreme end, almost to gnostic. Of course any rational atheist cannot really be perfectly gnostic about a deities, as there's no way to prove there is no god. Richard Dawkins considers himself a 6 out of 7 on the gnostic scale.

The default position on any assertive claim is always scepticism, hence asking you to provide evidence is not a secular world view, its a rational one.

I have debunked everything that you brought to the table, including why the law of thermodynamics defies the “Evolution Theory”

No, you didn't, you don't even understand thermodynamics. The Earth isn't a closed system thus it does not apply and when you include the entropy of the Sun so that you have approximately a closed system you find entropy increases, as expected.

When we take into account the whole Universe (and this includes everything within it) as a whole is experiencing decreased entropy, and will inevitably die out as the sun uses up all its energy. This is based on the scientific knowledge that the overall amount of gas in the entire Universe is dissipating, which makes our Universe a closed looped system in which entropy will eventually win in the end and the solar system (indeed, the whole universe) will die a death at maximum entropy. Everything is a “closed system”, there is no such thing as an open system! No human ingenuity or technology is going to outsmart the “second law“ which is in absolute control of all natural processes!

Wrong. A closed system can contain within it open systems. The human body is an open system as we take in food and air and expel waste, breath and heat. The only time your body becomes a closed system is when you stop taking in things and stop giving them out, ie you're dead. Yes, the entire universe (or just our solar system to first approximation for the purposes of the discussion of life on Earth) is closed but its filled with open systems. You are incorrect in your conclusion that essentially a closed system cannot contain open systems within it. The open systems exchange entropy and energy and material but only between themselves, not things outside the closed system constructed from them.

Life on earth is a temporary blip in the process of universal down winding. It is an ILLUSION that things in life are “reversing“ and can temporarily produce small areas of organization for the so called “Evolution Theory” to have occured.

Yes, life is a temporary blip, sustained against entropy only by that bright light in the daytime sky known as the Sun. You do notice that thing in the sky right?

Let me also reiterate…
1. Mathematical possibility of evolution = 0
2. Fossil proof of evolution = 0
3. Laboratory observation of evolution = 0
4. Laws of physics supporting evolution = 0
Conclusion = G-d!

I'll add 'inability to count' to the list of your short comings.

This is because the word used for circumference (line) has two letters in Hebrew, but this one was written with a third letter. Hebrew has no digits, (all letters do double-duty as numbers). When one uses the ratio formed by the numeric values, you get:

(5 + 6 + 100) / (6 + 100)
111 / 106
1.047169811

Now, multiply this by the false number given for Pi:

3 * 1.047169811 = 3.141509434

Now I know that Pi is approximately 3.141592654, giving us an error of .00264896181%, which is slightly off the mark, but it is probably more than accurate enough for the measurement tools of that time

Your ability to do retro-active numerology is irrelevant. Muslims do it for the quran too.

Now I know that Pi is approximately 3.141592654, giving us an error of .00264896181%, which is slightly off the mark, but it is probably more than accurate enough for the measurement tools of that time

The ancient Greeks had constructed that fractional approximation for pi using inscribed and exscribed polygons, ie using geometry, long before the bible was written. Even if you weren't doing numerology you have not presented anything not known to the ancient world and you also got wrong the method by which pi was calculated in those day. Haven't done your homework.

Additionally, when I am measuring something with a ruler, I usually round off to the nearest unit. This would be particularly true if I were measuring a sea of molten metal.

If some circle is 10 units across then to the nearest whole number gives a diameter of 31 units, not 30 as the bible says. So if they were doing measurements why get it wrong even from that point of view. Besides, if the bible is supposed to be exactly right in matters of science then you can't pick and choose how to interpret things. If you can interpret Kings 7:23 differently why not Genesis 1:1?

Pi is an irrational number. Remember what I said some time back… G-d does not care about our mathematical difficulties; He integrates empirically. ~Albert Einstein

What relevance does that have?

Electrons orbit the nucleus much the same way the planets orbit the sun.

False. Learn some quantum mechanics.

Each cell is itself a conscious life responding in an individual way and

Cells are alive but they are not conscious.

Its usually the atheists who need proof of G-d before believing

Yes, because those who don't need evidence are already suckered into some religion.

They fall victim to disbelief

Do you believe in the Loch Ness monster? Or bigfoot? Or do you think there's not enough evidence to believe? Your god falls under the same heading, as does everyone elses.

The evidence is out there and all around us

Then you shouldn't need to resort to lying and deception and wilful ignorance then.

Ok, but firstly let me say that “proof is an idol before whom the atheist tortures himself!”

I care about what's true and I wish to have as few false beliefs as possible. Do you not care whether or not your beliefs are true?

One of these historians is a person by the name of Cornelius Tacitus who lived after Jesus from 55AD to 120AD. He was a senator and Roman historian. He writes about a man called Chrestus (a common connotation of Christ) who was executed by Pilate the Roman official of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias.

Not an eye witness and thus reports heresay about someone who you have no reason to believe was Jesus other than you wanting to justify your predetermined belief.

Another Greek writer named Lucian of Samosata who is recorded to have lived within two hundred years of Jesus additionally made reference to Jesus.

Not an eye witness and thus operating on heresay and generations old stories. Yes, people after Jesus talked about it, its how the religion took hold. Already by the 2nd century there was a Christian religion and they were talking about Jesus. But all they were doing is going on other people's stories, which is what you're doing.

Can you provide anyone actually from the time of Jesus? Did no one write something like "News has reached me that a man by the name of Jesus, a preacher of sorts, raised the dead, who entered the local town and conversed with the inhabitants". Did no one other than followers of Jesus write anything about all these miracles? Didn't the events seem important enough to anyone that no one mentioned them?

Another governor by the name of Pliny in 112AD was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the Roman emperor. Another philosopher by the name of Mara Bar-Serapion who lived some time after 70 AD wrote a letter to his son describing how the Jews executed their King. But perhaps the most famous of all, happens to be a Jewish historian named Josephus who was born 4 years after the crucifixion of Jesus in 37AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquities describing Jesus as a wise man who did wonderful works and calling Him the Messiah. Josephus also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and had shortly after, rose from the dead.

More heresay, where the people you mention only had other people's word, people who got it from someone else, who heard it from a guy who got told by someone that their mate 50 years ago met some follower of some guy names Jesus who according to his followers had superpowers.

Right now you can go talk to people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, many of whom have similar detailed accounts and seem to back one another up and yet they are considered nuts.

There is also two other ancient historians of indisputable origins… One was named Thallus and the other Phlegon. Both confirmed the biblical account of an earthquake and an eclipse of the sun when Jesus took His last breath and gave up His spirit on the cross and died. We find a record of this in the New Testament of Luke 23:45 - And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And also in Matthew 27:51 - At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. And additionally in Mark 15:38 - The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. However, the Roman historian Thallus wrote in his journals in 52AD (before the disciples wrote the New Testament, which was said to be in 70AD) - On the whole world, there pressed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. Thallus also writes - As appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. Additionally, the Roman historian Phlegon born in 80AD records in 140AD - That, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak. Phlegon also writes -The darkness that occurred in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad (corresponding to 32/33 A.D), There was the greatest eclipse of the sun. It became as night in the sixth hour of the day (noon) so that the stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia and many things were overturned in Nicaea. The evidence of a recorded earthquake in history clearly shows that this event occurred on a date and time that agrees with the scriptures, which makes a strong case for Jesus‘ authenticity which includes a supernatural happening.

No eye witness testimony outside the bible talks about Jesus and eclipses were not unknown to people of the time, as were earthquakes. Yes, eclipses happened in the decade 30AD - 40AD but that's true of any decade ever. Its easy to ret-con in all the stuff when you don't have to worry about any eye witness testimony coming to light and contradicting you. Yes, earthquakes and eclipses were experienced by that region of the world but that doesn't in any way imply it occured when Jesus was on the cross, if he even existed. Your argument doesn't justify your claim.

....bible quotes.....

Not evidence.

Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose. ~Albert Einstein

That explains why you ignore reality, so you can lead yourself to your own preassumed conclusions.

Further failure Anita.

From a scientific pov, there is no alternative to a universe maker of the universe. Maybe you know of one?

Argument from ignorance. The fact we might not have all the answers now doesn't mean your answer is made more valid. If I separately ask two people a question the ability of the first person to answer has no impact on the answer of the second.

'God done it' provides no explanation.

This refers to monotheism. There is no mathematical alternative to a monotheistic view based on a universe maker.

How about 2 universe creators helping one another? Or 4? Or 40?

Maybe you know of another alternative to the MONO premise?

You only present an argument from ignorance.

From a science pov, Abraham introduced monotheism, from which were derived science and laws for humanity.

Science was held back by religion. The darkest time for science (ie the dark ages) was when religion was most rampant in Europe. During that time the Arabs maintained all the knowledge from the Greeks and Romans but then they got rampant religion and got thrown into their own dark age. Science didn't talk off till religion got reigned in.

As for laws there's no need to have them handed down from on high, secular morality is entirely valid. The fact historically some things were motivated by religion doesn't mean they are impossible without religion. I'm not religious but I'd like not to be killed by someone and thus I would like to be surrounded by people who don't want to be killed either, that way we can live longer and happier. You can't have societies without basic rules for getting along, thus simply the fact we're a social species provides the motivation for morality and laws.

The bible advocates slavery, genocide, rape, slaughter and fosters a 'might makes right' attitude (there's no democracy in the bible, despite the Greeks having had it before). Religion might make people do some right things but for the wrong reason (do as I say or I'll burn you forever) but it also makes them do wrong things, like the kind of punishments we see in extremely Islamic countries. When you get your morals by the method of "Do as I say or I'll harm you" then you don't really have morals at all.

we have loads of circumstantial evidence for Abraham and Moses

We have none. And even if we had a time machine and could go back and meet them that doesn't prove the bible isn't anything more than bigoted fictional clap trap.

 

[IamJoseph]

The Hebrew text, when read correctly, allows only a regional flood and the stated animals as Noah's domestic stock. The text refers to Noah's possessions and household only - the reason we don't see wild animals listed. The waters covering the earth refers to how the people saw this flood - not how we see it today; in ancient times people never left their villages all their life. Tasmania, Cuba and Israel never existed at this time - same as a future city on the Moon does not exist today. The Noah story marks the first historical Mount Ararat with aerial view description of its exact location - 1000's of years before Google.

The Hebrew introduced grammar itself to humanity, is the first advanced alphabetical books and is the only language with the force to resurrect itself after 2000 years and become an active living language again, quoted by the greatest writers and poets; its laws and history accounting remains second to none. No language has ever performed such feats - the Hebrew did this while being isolated and forbidden by the world's nations.

The Hebrew writings are still way ahead of the population who are left totally diminished by its deceptively simple text. The Hebrew inspired two of the world's biggest religions and the english language itself. Eat your heart out Shakespear and Milton.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The Hebrew text, when read correctly, allows only a regional flood and the stated animals as Noah's domestic stock. The text refers to Noah's possessions and household only - the reason we don't see wild animals listed. The waters covering the earth refers to how the people saw this flood - not how we see it today; in ancient times people never left their villages all their life. Tasmania, Cuba and Israel never existed at this time - same as a future city on the Moon does not exist today. The Noah story marks the first historical Mount Ararat with aerial view description of its exact location - 1000's of years before Google.

If the flood should be viewed as allegorical or with a pinch of salt then why should anything in the bible be taken seriously?

There's only a few internally consistent ways you can view the bible or any holy text if you're a believer. Either you accept it all literally or you accept it as metaphor and as an attempt by the deity to convey lessons, not facts. Once you start saying "That bit isn't literal" then you can't then turn around and say "But that bit is", because you are picking and choosing what to believe not based on "This is right because a god says so" but "This is right because I say so".

Its like the Christian thing "Its the old testament, it doesn't count". The old testament is an account of a jealous, angry, bigoted god who demands sacrifices, advocates slavery, murder and rape and who enacts rules many now find immoral. No one stones unruly children on the edge of town, no one would think that's right, yet the bible says it. Slavery (once the Deep South got its ass kicked) is no longer allowed, despite the bible telling you who you can enslave, how much they are worth and how to mark them as yours. I find it amazing that Christians in the US want to put the 10 commandments up around places (particularly government or legal buildings) yet they'll come out with "That's the old testament that doesn't count" when someone brings up some immoral act advocated by god in te same bit of the bible. They pick and choose what they want to believe which means that they aren't getting their morality from god, they are actually developing their own secular morality based on what they and the community at large think is right or wrong. Slavery is wrong and it was wrong 200 and 2000 years ago and most people realise that now, how many times do Republicans say "God bless this freedom of ours!"? They've used their own moral compass, developed from living in a society, to reject some of the bigoted racism of the bible and yet they can't see it.

The Hebrew introduced grammar itself to humanity,

Citation needed.

and is the only language with the force to resurrect itself after 2000 years and become an active living language again, quoted by the greatest writers and poets;

That doesn't mean its divine inspired, it means its a central part of a certain group's culture. Latin hasn't been a day to day language in centuries, even millennia, yet it remains due to cultural impact.

Its laws and history accounting remains second to none.

Opinion.

The Hebrew writings are still way ahead of the population who are left totally diminished by its deceptively simple text. The Hebrew inspired two of the world's biggest religions and the english language itself. Eat your heart out Shakespear and Milton.

The English language is the result of mixing numerous different populations together. Our language has Germanic roots, with influence from French, various Scandinavian countries and Celtic languages. English isn't something someone was 'inspired' to come up with, its something which developed over time through day to day development and requirement. People had a language (many in fact!) here on the British Isles long before even the Romans invaded. It then got mixed together due to Roman, Viking, Norman and French invasions (or invasion attempts) and developed like any other kind of language.

Provide evidence Hebrew inspired the English language. And even if it did the work of people like Shakespeare and Milton was their own, the fact the language they used had some particular origin doesn't mean it gets credit for their work. I speak English but anything I do doesn't get attributed to the group who heavily influenced the origin of the language I speak, if such a group even exists.

 

[IamJoseph]

If the flood should be viewed as allegorical or with a pinch of salt then why should anything in the bible be taken seriously?

Allegory? No sir - there was a huge regional flood here - backed by other ancient writings and a host of other vindicated historical factors seen in the Genesis story - like the first mention of Mount Ararat?

There's only a few internally consistent ways you can view the bible or any holy text if you're a believer. Either you accept it all literally or you accept it as metaphor and as an attempt by the deity to convey lessons, not facts. Once you start saying "That bit isn't literal" then you can't then turn around and say "But that bit is", because you are picking and choosing what to believe not based on "This is right because a god says so" but "This is right because I say so".

I quoted actual texts and gave logical reasonings. No pickings occured.

Its like the Christian thing "Its the old testament, it doesn't count". The old testament is an account of a jealous, angry, bigoted god who demands sacrifices, advocates slavery, murder and rape and who enacts rules many now find immoral.

The reverse is the case. The Hebrew bible was the first to forbid human sacrifice and made animal sacrifice negated by graduated means: first by limiting it only to the temple - this negated 99% of animal sacrifice, then by making it only applicable for accidental sins, not for wanton crimes. Do you know a better way?

Bigoted? All animal rights laws come from the Hebrew bibe - exclusively. Is LOVE THE STRANGER bigotry?

No one stones unruly children on the edge of town, no one would think that's right, yet the bible says it. Slavery (once the Deep South got its ass kicked) is no longer allowed, despite the bible telling you who you can enslave, how much they are worth and how to mark them as yours. I find it amazing that Christians in the US want to put the 10 commandments up around places (particularly government or legal buildings) yet they'll come out with "That's the old testament that doesn't count" when someone brings up some immoral act advocated by god in te same bit of the bible. They pick and choose what they want to believe which means that they aren't getting their morality from god, they are actually developing their own secular morality based on what they and the community at large think is right or wrong. Slavery is wrong and it was wrong 200 and 2000 years ago and most people realise that now, how many times do Republicans say "God bless this freedom of ours!"? They've used their own moral compass, developed from living in a society, to reject some of the bigoted racism of the bible and yet they can't see it.

The 10 C's are not the world's greatest laws because America fronts up with it - it is what made America the greatest nation. FYI, there are 613 laws in the Hebrew bible - and all are active and embedded in bona fide institutions of the world - to the extent no laws from any other source are accepted.

Stoning in ancient times was like a parking fine today. Its the law of not abusing parents which is the thing you avoid mentioning.

That doesn't mean its divine inspired, it means its a central part of a certain group's culture. Latin hasn't been a day to day language in centuries, even millennia, yet it remains due to cultural impact.

Latin is a dead language. It was ridiculed even when Rome ruled - Greek was used instead. And the Greeks got their apha beta from the Hebrew alef bet.

The English language is the result of mixing numerous different populations together.

The reason for the success of the english is it resorted back to the Hebrew mode: the greeks seperated the vowels from the Hebrew alphabets, but the english reversed that error - it made the vowels again as alphabets. This is the reason behind the english's pliability, and also the failure of the greek to hold this position.

 

[arfa brane]

Latin is a dead language. It was ridiculed even when Rome ruled - Greek was used instead.

This is complete bullshit. Educated Romans spoke and wrote in both Greek--the language of rhetoric, and in Latin--the language of the ruling class. I don't think they ridiculed themselves when they used either language.

The reason for the success of the english is it resorted back to the Hebrew mode

Nothing to do with the rise of an Empire that colonised most of the known world, then? English was about as successful as Latvian in the Middle Ages.

 

[funkstar]

The 10 C's are not the world's greatest laws because America fronts up with it - it is what made America the greatest nation. FYI, there are 613 laws in the Hebrew bible - and all are active and embedded in bona fide institutions of the world - to the extent no laws from any other source are accepted.

Stoning in ancient times was like a parking fine today.

This is ahistorical, wrong, immoral and insane.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Originally Posted by IamJoseph
The 10 C's are not the world's greatest laws because America fronts up with it - it is what made America the greatest nation. FYI, there are 613 laws in the Hebrew bible - and all are active and embedded in bona fide institutions of the world - to the extent no laws from any other source are accepted.

I back Joseph here!

Read towards the bottom of one of my previous posts here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2602345&postcount=680

We even have such commands from G-d for safety in the Bible. This would apply today to architects and construction workers that build something that is faulty, which can bring on a big lawsuit if someone is injured.

Deuteronomy 22:8 - When you build a new house, make a parapet (low wall) around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof. The purpose of this wall was to prevent someone from accidentally falling off the roof.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
As for laws there's no need to have them handed down from on high, secular morality is entirely valid. The fact historically some things were motivated by religion doesn't mean they are impossible without religion. I'm not religious but I'd like not to be killed by someone and thus I would like to be surrounded by people who don't want to be killed either, that way we can live longer and happier. You can't have societies without basic rules for getting along, thus simply the fact we're a social species provides the motivation for morality and laws.

The bible advocates slavery, genocide, rape, slaughter and fosters a 'might makes right' attitude (there's no democracy in the bible, despite the Greeks having had it before). Religion might make people do some right things but for the wrong reason (do as I say or I'll burn you forever) but it also makes them do wrong things, like the kind of punishments we see in extremely Islamic countries. When you get your morals by the method of "Do as I say or I'll harm you" then you don't really have morals at all.

Oh really! Let me clue you into some rational thought… You assert that that one can still have morals and at the same time not be religious or believe in G-d (this can also include being totally devoid of spirituality). This however is not true, and I will lay emphasis on just why. Sure one can still have MORALS (self laws of quality and regulation), including guidelines and rules based on governmental laws. But what such people fail to realize is that morality still triumphs on a higher order of things, notably FAITH! (the substance of things hoped for, but not seen). Everything is of a “spiritual basis”… if our eyes are open and we are aware of it, one cannot deny what is central to our makeup as human beings.

Thus either way, there is no escaping G-d.

Alphanumeric, I do not respect your intelligence, nor do I have much faith either in your rational processes or your sincerity as a seeker of the truth!

Do you even realize that everything you’ve said to me in all of your previous posts are devoid of realizing one thing… and this has to do with the notion of “FAITH” as I‘ve just pointed out pertaining to “morals“.

Now you may think that this word (faith) is not in your atheist vocabulary, but I will define for you that indeed it is. To be an atheist one also has to have "faith". You’ve told me that you are a “agnostic atheist” and that you acknowledge that there's no way to prove there is no G-d. That is correct, even as an atheist, you don't have the evidence to prove that G-d doesn't exist. Atheism is like a religion in itself, some scientists believe so heavily (almost madly) on the "Theory of Evolution" that it blinds them into believing so strongly that a G-d doesn’t exists. This type of philosophy is actually a whole other religion in itself… that without even realizing it - it too is based solely on “faith” for the mere reason alone that NOT ONE physically tangible (touchable and concrete) true transitional form in the whole history of archeology has ever been found. Nor has anything truly been established in the lab concerning it. Moreover as I’ve also explained with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy that the laws of physics do not support the Evolution Theory - as I‘ve previously explained that our universe is a closed loop system, for that reason it wins over any open system that may reside within no matter how you choose to look at it. Therefore, evolution is a preconceived notion (involving vague and general ideas) that living things changed and transpired through time without a single shred of evidence, and we are allowing a theory that’s based on misguided faith to be the guiding mechanism of science. So why do I say that the theory of evolution is also a religion? Because it is something that has to be believed (through faith) without visible evidence. Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The evolution theory CANNOT explain what started that process.

False. Learn some quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is also built on FAITH! Since it requires trying to estimate the actions and behaviors of microscopic particles. This also involves atoms that can be in multiple places at once. (variances of “non locality).

Though, there is still an ultimate question mark that we did not tackle yet. And this is the idea (mentioned in a previous posting here) that in all actuality because we as humans cannot be sure if anything we see is truly “material”, because what we see with our eyes is really only rays of electrical signals (energy) that is transmitted by neurons and deciphered by a tiny part in the back of the brain. Thus the brain is also a material thing in itself, and in truthfulness the room that we are in, is really “within” us, and not the other way around. It is funny how we can dream in sleep, and within our brain still have the sensations to see with our eyes and touch with our hands, yet we have neither eyes nor hands. What is left? Only a incorporeal/spiritual matter - hence FAITH!

Added to all this, time is “relative” (to the speed one is traveling) - it is not something that is absolute, it only exists pertaining to ones conscious point of view or observation. This was one of Albert Einstein’s greatest insights in realizing that time is relative when it speeds up or slows down depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to something else (he termed this “time dilation“). But one of the biggest monumental questions posed by some of the greatest scientific thinkers: Is time really real? Time is of your own making, its clock ticks in your head. The moment you stop thought, time too stops dead - Angelus Silesius.

So if time is relative, and we cant believe what we are even seeing in the scope of all things, EVERYTHING literally becomes moot, and FAITH is the only thing that’s left. IT ALL EQUATES TO G-D! Whether you choose to believe this or not is your own prerogative.

I believe in G-d as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

book demo:

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/files/Pictures_and_explanation.pdf

 

[spidergoat]

This type of philosophy is actually a whole other religion in itself… that without even realizing it - it too is based solely on “faith” for the mere reason alone that NOT ONE physically tangible (touchable and concrete) true transitional form in the whole history of archeology has ever been found.

Your post consisted entirely of tired creationist apologia that has all been debunked long ago. Not only have many transitional forms been found, they are ALL transitional. Also, you might want to check out the history of anthropology rather than archeology, you might have been looking in the wrong section of the library.

But what such people fail to realize is that morality still triumphs on a higher order of things, notably FAITH!

What on Earth does that mean? I have morals, but no faith. Please explain how this isn't possible.

 

[Anita Meyer]

“ Originally Posted by Anita
This type of philosophy is actually a whole other religion in itself… that without even realizing it - it too is based solely on “faith” for the mere reason alone that NOT ONE physically tangible (touchable and concrete) true transitional form in the whole history of archeology has ever been found. ”

Your post consisted entirely of tired creationist apologia that has all been debunked long ago. Not only have many transitional forms been found, they are ALL transitional. Also, you might want to check out the history of anthropology rather than archeology, you might have been looking in the wrong section of the library.

Spidergoat, we have already discussed (and hashed over) for why there are no true transitional forms:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2483655&postcount=376

Archeology/archaeology and anthropology can both be used here, since they both deal with humankind in all aspects. Archaeology is, broadly speaking, the study of the human past, while Anthropology is a multidisciplinary approach to the study of human beings. Maybe you meant to include Paleontology - the study of fossils?

Why don’t you take up the science of "Ichnology" and trace back to my previous posts since you have a goldfish memory of 3 seconds, if even.

 

[spidergoat]

A true transitional (intermediate) form would have non-functioning (malfunctioning) faulty parts or appendages, such as the nub (root) of a leg, arm or wing.

That's absolutely wrong, the Theory of Evolution never says that, quite the opposite. Every so-called transitional form is complete unto itself. If something had a malfunctioning limb, it wouldn't survive. But, there are transitional forms, for instance, between worms and things with legs. They do have nubs that work perfectly well in their environment. That's the beauty of the Theory of Evolution. Everything is well adapted, and everything is changing because conditions change.

Evolution states that every single one of your ancestors was successful enough to survive into reproductive adulthood.

 

[Anita Meyer]

That's absolutely wrong, the Theory of Evolution never says that, quite the opposite. Every so-called transitional form is complete unto itself. If something had a malfunctioning limb, it wouldn't survive.

This is pure bupkis! I know what the fossil record says, and that’s why its wrong about evolution!

But, there are transitional forms, for instance, between worms and things with legs. They do have nubs that work perfectly well in their environment.

A worm is still a worm!

That's the beauty of the Theory of Evolution. Everything is well adapted, and everything is changing because conditions change.

No everything is not well adapted (some creatures are born deformed) and that’s why we should be finding these malfunctioned creatures in the fossil record since perhaps they only had small legs to walk on and could not get food for themselves or fend off predators, but we're not finding these things, and there should MANY of them. The obvious reason we are not finding them is simply because there were no transitional stages.

Evolution states that every single one of your ancestors was successful enough to survive into reproductive adulthood.

That’s right, cats coming from cats and humans coming from humans.

Your posts have more rolls than a bakery. At this point in the thread, your posts are officially equivalent to a fossilized wash rag.

 

[arfa brane]

Isn't insanity just fascinating?