174 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

physicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 12:26 AM, said:

No. "I don't think you're aware of the credentials possessed by some of the people you're dismissing."

Show their credentials, here.

Now that would be great.

[physicsolved]

Abramelin, on 08 February 2011 - 12:30 AM, said:

You ever heard of radiocarbon dating? Nothing to do with translation, whatsoever.

In the morter the Gypsies (I can play with words too, heh) used to stick the rocks together, they found traces of charcoal. They dated it, and alas....

Yes i have heard of it along with acid racemization. Both of which are demonstratively unreliable. As well always relative to the predispositions of those utilizing these unreliable systems used to "date"...things,times and events.

One evolutionist to another:

1)"hey  what did you "come up with" when you dated that object"
2)"A million billion years."
1)" Well i "came up with" a billion million years."

(1$2...colussion/colaboration/credentials:

" Well it "proves" the creationits wrong, so does it really matter." ( Mowahahahahah)

Edited by physicsolved, 08 February 2011 - 12:46 AM.

[Abramelin]

physicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 12:40 AM, said:

Yes i have heard of it along with acid racemization. Both of which are demonstratively unreliable. As well always relative to the predispositions of those utilizing these unreliable systems used to "date"...things,times and events.

Radiocarbon dating is calibrated with dendrochronoly, for one.

But none of these techniques come up with a date 'religious' people like  I think you belong to prefer.

Well, if these ways of dating are not reliable, what way of dating the pyramids is more reliable to you?

Your way of word-play with the English language? I like to have fun with the anagram-generator (the "wordsmith" site, Google please) too, but I don't consider it a source of scientific proof.

[Abramelin]

physicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 12:40 AM, said:

Yes i have heard of it along with acid racemization. Both of which are demonstratively unreliable. As well always relative to the predispositions of those utilizing these unreliable systems used to "date"...things,times and events.

One evolutionist to another:

1)"hey  what did you "come up with" when you dated that object"
2)"A million billion years."
1)" Well i "came up with" a billion million years."

(1$2...colussion/colaboration/credentials:

" Well it "proves" the creationits wrong, so does it really matter." ( Mowahahahahah)

And what do you come up with? The Bible.

Look, if you like I will write the Newest Testament, and tell you I was inspired by Joe Hova.

Then you will believe it, right?

[Abramelin]

Abramelin, on 08 February 2011 - 12:40 AM, said:

Show their credentials, here.

Now that would be great.

What? Huh? Credentials??

Come on, post them, please.

[physicsolved]

Abramelin, on 08 February 2011 - 12:48 AM, said:

Radiocarbon dating is calibrated with dendrochronoly, for one.

But none of these techniques come up with a date 'religious' people like  I think you belong to prefer.

Well, if these ways of dating are not reliable, what way of dating the pyramids is more reliable to you?

Your way of word-play with the English language? I like to have fun with the anagram-generator (the "wordsmith" site, Google please) too, but I don't consider it a source of scientific proof.

I agree with you ( more often than not relative to the farse that is : Carbon dating)

" none of these techniques come up with a date 'religious' people like."

Indeed they are always conveniently more conduscive to the  religion of... evolution:

However whether agreeable to evolutionists or creationists this does not in any wa substantiate nor legitimitize the dating process itself. Religious views aside.

[physicsolved]

Abramelin, on 08 February 2011 - 12:51 AM, said:

And what do you come up with? The Bible.

Look, if you like I will write the Newest Testament, and tell you I was inspired by Joe Hova.

Then you will believe it, right?

If you copy the entire Greek scriptures ( verses the erroneous term "new testament)..then copy the psalms and proverbs then you will have accomplished what I did at the age of 24. I was not inspired of God..rather inspired by the many relevancies to be gleaned from this very exceptional book. A book that was inspired of God relative to 40 other humans..and not me.

I have equally studies the sciences of astronomy and physics. As well I have found much reward in studying anthropology, ancient history, linguistics, anatomy, art..as well geometry.

I do not ascribe to astrology. I do not ascribe to organized religious systems nor to their myriad deities. mysticism, occult...absurd.

Reiterate: The "greatest literary work"...........very interested!

[kmt_sesh]

Abramelin, on 08 February 2011 - 12:40 AM, said:

Show their credentials, here.

Now that would be great.

The remark about credentials was mine, Abramelin. I was just stating that physicsolved wasn't aware of the experience and background of some of the people he's been disputing. I was annoyed that physicsolved, like some other UM posters with whom we're familiar, tends toward the practice of just dismissing evidence to bolster their own ideas. Or egos. Or whatever.

In any case I for one appreciate your joining the fray. I know it's more or less fruitless to try to spread some light into the dim murkiness of the extreme fringe, but when absurd claims are made, a response is appropriate. Case in point:

physicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 01:19 AM, said:

If you copy the entire Greek scriptures ( verses the erroneous term "new testament)..then copy the psalms and proverbs then you will have accomplished what I did at the age of 24. I was not inspired of God..rather inspired by the many relevancies to be gleaned from this very exceptional book. A book that was inspired of God relative to 40 other humans..and not me.

I have equally studies the sciences of astronomy and physics. As well I have found much reward in studying anthropology, ancient history, linguistics, anatomy, art..as well geometry.

I do not ascribe to astrology. I do not ascribe to organized religious systems nor to their myriad deities. mysticism, occult...absurd.

Reiterate: The "greatest literary work"...........very interested!

The kinds of things you claim to have familiarity with are exactly the kinds of things we're trying to get you to rise to, physicsolved. If you truly understood the methodologies and research principles that have gone into these fields for more than a century, you would not be arguing against us at all. You would be agreeing with us.

On an aside, I've decided not to expound on the earlier post (I suggested I might, back in post 83). I mean, what would be the point? Folks like Abramelin and cormac have seen me do it countless times before and probably already knew the information as well as I, so the only immediate benefit would be yours. And you don't like real research and corroboration of evidence, so I'm going to give myself a break.

And on a final note, earlier you wrote: "I would encourage Abrameline to visit my thread in this forum discussing language and anatomy." I know it's probably not evident to you, physicsolved, but there's a reason that thread of yours is a digital ghost town.

[Abramelin]

physicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 01:11 AM, said:

I agree with you ( more often than not relative to the farse that is : Carbon dating)

" none of these techniques come up with a date 'religious' people like."

Indeed they are always conveniently more conduscive to the  religion of... evolution:

However whether agreeable to evolutionists or creationists this does not in any wa substantiate nor legitimitize the dating process itself. Religious views aside.

But what is your alternative - and more reliable - way of dating ancient artifacts/structures?

I mentioned the Bible because you once called it a history book.

I mentioned your mangling of words, because that 'technique' of distorting the English language is the process you use to prove things (in another thread).


The way you write in English is admirable for somebody - like me - who is not a native speaker of English.

Only the ideas you express with your words seem a bit off.

Not only that, you have nothing substantial to back them up.

[cormac mac airt]

kmt_sesh, on 08 February 2011 - 02:07 AM, said:

The remark about credentials was mine, Abramelin. I was just stating that physicsolved wasn't aware of the experience and background of some of the people he's been disputing. I was annoyed that physicsolved, like some other UM posters with whom we're familiar, tends toward the practice of just dismissing evidence to bolster their own ideas. Or egos. Or whatever.

In any case I for one appreciate your joining the fray. I know it's more or less fruitless to try to spread some light into the dim murkiness of the extreme fringe, but when absurd claims are made, a response is appropriate. Case in point:



The kinds of things you claim to have familiarity with are exactly the kinds of things we're trying to get you to rise to, physicsolved. If you truly understood the methodologies and research principles that have gone into these fields for more than a century, you would not be arguing against us at all. You would be agreeing with us.

On an aside, I've decided not to expound on the earlier post (I suggested I might, back in post 83). I mean, what would be the point? Folks like Abramelin and cormac have seen me do it countless times before and probably already knew the information as well as I, so the only immediate benefit would be yours. And you don't like real research and corroboration of evidence, so I'm going to give myself a break.

And on a final note, earlier you wrote: "I would encourage Abrameline to visit my thread in this forum discussing language and anatomy." I know it's probably not evident to you, physicsolved, but there's a reason that thread of yours is a digital ghost town.

And that reason would be that even with 302 posts under his belt, he has shown neither evidence of knowing anything meaningful nor relevant to ancient history. But parroting, in his own way, a Creationist belief in ancient history which is archaeologically, geologically and genetically unevidenced, regardless of any of his claims to the contrary.

cormac

[Abramelin]

kmt_sesh, on 08 February 2011 - 02:07 AM, said:

The remark about credentials was mine, Abramelin. I was just stating that physicsolved wasn't aware of the experience and background of some of the people he's been disputing. I was annoyed that physicsolved, like some other UM posters with whom we're familiar, tends toward the practice of just dismissing evidence to bolster their own ideas. Or egos. Or whatever.

I know it was you who posted that remark the first time, Kmt_sesh.

I just repeated it.

[kmt_sesh]

Abramelin, on 08 February 2011 - 02:27 AM, said:

I know it was you who posted that remark the first time, Kmt_sesh.

I just repeated it.

My bad, Abramelin. I guess Post 97 was his way of showing his "credentials." But as I pondered in my previous post, you'd think that someone who's studied so many disciplines would have some idea of how research is performed.

[tipotep]

Abramelin, on 08 February 2011 - 12:51 AM, said:

And what do you come up with? The Bible.

Look, if you like I will write the Newest Testament, and tell you I was inspired by Joe Hova.

Then you will believe it, right?

Credit where it is due ..... that was some funny s##t  

TiP

[digitalartist]

physicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:

Huh!

I will not pursue this line of argument. Nothing you have said historically invalidates the flood nor where the ark came to rest nor the supposed “impossibilities” of humans descending the mountain range ( a range that encompasses “2 conical peaks separated by a deep depression….as well: (only) the last 3,000 ft up to its summit is perpetually covered with snow.) If what is true of the modern scenario was true of the ancient time of the ark this would represent a traversing of less than 1 mile down the slope. As well given humans are “relatively smart” ( evolutionists: a little more than apes) they utilized the many animals to aid them in the descent. Riding on animal backs, wearing animal skins, plenty of drinking water carried by animals, plenty of food carried by animals. Plenty of fire ( evolutionists: good thing animals had epiphanies..eh), Plenty of wood( extracted from the ark) , smart enough to make wheels for a warm carriage big enough for 8 people drawn by animals ( take there pick) etc..etc… Thus: with these provisions they could travel up the mountain back down up again and back down. And yet they really only had to travel a little more than 2 miles.

And you insult the intelligent faculties of humans that lived a little more than 4,000 years ago. You state something that is so absurd that it is inexcusable. Thus you imply that Noah and his family had “no equipment or experience.” Yet only 8 of them built and ark bigger than the titanic that housed many animals and provided them shelter from the divine storm for 1 year. Yet they lacked tools and equipment to build a carriage with wheels! Ridiculous.

This is how evolutionists think. Thus this is how they are easily exposed as “absurd in their thinking processes.” You see Noah as a grunting ape with a small brain who cannot even master how to get termites out of a termite mound. You consider his immediate family of “hominoid retarded people.” as incapable of collectively much less individually devising a way to walk down a mountain for about 2-3 hours.

Most  of the responses of this room are predisposed to see our human forefathers in this light. This being so certainly explains the desperate to the point of fanciful reasoning expressed relative to some posts. The refusal to think about anything reasonably and to acknowledge the logical and historical relevancies of anything.

And some in the room say they are growing weary of debate with me. Sigh!

I can only say: Skepticism - Accept it, Embrace it. For this seems to be the "incurable" mental modem of operandi

As I said in my last post, the flood could not happen as accounted in the bible.  I never said there was no flood.  I proved the bible wrong in one respect that either the waters covered Mt Everest or the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat, but with the vast difference in heights between the two mountains, both can not be true though the bible erroneously indicates they both were.  If there can be an error there, other errors can also exist.  Though the bible says the mountains of Ararat, the only option, if one reads carefully, is Mt Ararat itself.  The Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, but the tops of the mountains were not visible for another 74 days, so the only mountain that the Ark could have come to rest on would have been the highest mountain which is Mt Ararat.

It is not the distance they would have to travel down the mountain that proves the difficulty but the conditions they would have encountered in that trek.  To quote my own research paper concerning the conditions on Mt Ararat.

Quote

As well as snow and ice, air pressure there is 40% of normal, average temperatures range from 0 C to -40 C, quantities of carbon dioxide mix with the already reduced level of oxygen, fog blankets large areas, deep crevasses can be encountered unexpectedly and dangerous lightning exists.  Altitude Sickness, Frostbite, Hypothermia, Confusion and fluid buildup on the brain and lungs would have affected humans and animals alike.

It would not have been the simple descent and ascent as you would like to believe but far more perilous.  Deep snows, ice, invisible trails and lack of sufficient oxygen would all have played their parts in the difficulties encountered.

I find that some of your posting is lacking in the research department, for example your assertion that the ark was bigger than the titanic.  This is untrue the ark was 450 L x 75 W x 45 H  the titanic was 882 L x 92 W x 60 H.  You may wish to make quick searches on the internet before posting comparisons to be sure of the accuracy of the facts.

No one on here, except you, in your flawed observation above, has ever referred to or believes Noah to be "a grunting ape with a small brain who cannot even master how to get termites out of a termite mound".  

I have approached this subject with logic and common sense, while others, mostly believers in the bible,  look at the facts like the conflict between a landing at Ararat and the covering of Everest or the effects the environmental hazards at the summit of Ararat would have on the passengers of the ark, as well as other facts, and choose either to ignore them completely or make rush judgments that they in no way invalidate anything, without ever looking into it more thoroughly.

[Emma_Acid]

physicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:

Thus you imply that Noah and his family had “no equipment or experience.” Yet only 8 of them built and ark bigger than the titanic that housed many animals and provided them shelter from the divine storm for 1 year. Yet they lacked tools and equipment to build a carriage with wheels! Ridiculous.

So you're assuming, against all reason, that the ark did actually exist then?? Wow. I mean, sure. If 8 people could build a boat bigger than the titanic, out of wood, defy the laws of physics to make it sail, get animals from all over the globe, keep each of the millions of species alive (and separate), feed them and deal with the staggering amount of crap produced, desalinate the land once the waters had gone and return all the animals to their prospective places around the globe (marsupials in Australasia etc), then sure - they could build a carriage with wheels.

physicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:

This is how evolutionists think. Thus this is how they are easily exposed as “absurd in their thinking processes.” You see Noah as a grunting ape with a small brain who cannot even master how to get termites out of a termite mound. You consider his immediate family of “hominoid retarded people.” as incapable of collectively much less individually devising a way to walk down a mountain for about 2-3 hours.

What on earth does this have to do with "evolutionists"?? Modern humans emerged about 50,000 years ago. 4,000 years ago humans were, culturally aside, exactly the same as we are now.

physicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:

Most  of the responses of this room are predisposed to see our human forefathers in this light. This being so certainly explains the desperate to the point of fanciful reasoning expressed relative to some posts. The refusal to think about anything reasonably and to acknowledge the logical and historical relevancies of anything

No, most of the responses don't believe in biblical truths. Creationists have a particularly scathing view on what rational peop - sorry - "evolutionists" believe (ie - know to be true).

physicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:

I can only say: Skepticism - Accept it, Embrace it. For this seems to be the "incurable" mental modem of operandi

What on earth is a "modem" of operandi???

Edited by Emma_Acid, 08 February 2011 - 11:00 AM.