Nihilisn, Nationalism & Nazism

[Piney]

14 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

Yeah, I was going to say that. Absolutely agree.

The real irony is the SDA and EGW are/were rabidly anti-Catholic yet use Bishop Ussher's dating method. 

[Antigonos]

6 minutes ago, Piney said:

The real irony is the SDA and EGW are/were rabidly anti-Catholic yet use Bishop Ussher's dating method. 

Ha! I didn’t even think of that. What a bunch of clowns.

[jmccr8]

54 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Talk to me ...more on that organism living millions of years ago. What's the strongest evidence you can give me to show that the creature lived millions of years ago? Thanks 

Hi Read

I see answers to your question have already been given so not much point in me adding other than saying you should familiarize yourself with the scientific disiplines involved.

I will ask again though how do you account for cities and cultures that predate your position that god created the world 6000 years ago.

I was taught that the world was destroyed twice which is why god said he eould not destroy it again with either fire or water. Earth at one time was a place where angels came to for recreation and was destroyed during the war with god which would predate humans  so it had to be here before 6000 years ago going by your dating and belief.

[Antigonos]

Just now, jmccr8 said:

Hi Read

I see answers to your question have already been given so not much point in me adding other than saying you should familiarize yourself with the scientific disiplines involved.

I will ask again though how do you account for cities and cultures that predate your position that god created the world 6000 years ago.

 

Jericho alone is older than that. You’d think she’d at least know some biblical archaeology.

[Guyver]

13 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

Ha! I didn’t even think of that. What a bunch of clowns.

Isn’t it kind of like “the enemy of my enemy is my friend?”

[Guyver]

7 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

Jericho alone is older than that. You’d think she’d at least know some biblical archaeology.

Interestingly, Jericho is considered the oldest continually inhabited city….dating back to around 9000 BCE, which makes it almost twice as old as Bishop Ushers chronology.

[+Hammerclaw]

It's one thing to have to deal with the ignorance of simpletons, but it's quite another to have to contend with the indoctrinated empty minds of the otherwise intelligent. The average fifth grader would run circles around them. The title of this thread seems rather sophisticated for someone who otherwise fits the above description, doesn't it?

Edited September 25, 2023 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Good question. Fossils don't take millions of years to form. That's my take on it. I know that's probably a controversial statement but I'm not exactly sure how you can observe a fossil forming from beginning to end to know beyond a shadow of a doubt how long it takes. It is possible that the dating measurement methods are incorrect - they've caught errors with carbon dating (for example). I definitely don't think it's correct. Normally, when science makes any statement it is accepted as fact. Not many skeptics. So when 'scientific evidence' is presented to me, I can't help picking it apart... find a lot that's either unreliable (how can you prove this or that) or biased to begin with. Data must be interpreted. There are more than one way to interpret it. 

It is certainly important to approach scientific claims with a critical mindset and you should ask questions. In fact, Science itself encourages skepticism and questioning in order to refine knowledge and increase understanding. However, it's important to differentiate between healthy skepticism, grounded in evidence and critical thinking, and undue skepticism or outright disdain for science that rejects established scientific consensus with no strong evidence or alternative explanations. Please refine your approach moving forward. 

An add to: while it's true that fossils don't necessarily take millions of years to form and there may be limitations and uncertainties in dating methods, it's important to clarify some points.

Fossilization is a complex process that can occur under various conditions, and the time it takes for a fossil to form can vary significantly depending on the circumstances. While some fossils can form relatively quickly under exceptional conditions, the majority of fossils, especially the ones commonly studied by scientists, do require significant periods of time to form. This is often due to processes such as sedimentation, mineralization, and the slow accumulation of layers over time. The extensive fossil record we have today, dating back millions of years, provides strong evidence for the gradual formation of fossils.

On dating methods: used by scientists to estimate the age of fossils and other geological materials rely on multiple methods, such as radiometric dating and relative dating. Each method has its own limitations and uncertainties, and scientists continuously refine and improve these techniques to minimize errors. While anomalies and inaccuracies can occur, they are relatively rare and don't invalidate the overall reliability of these dating methods. Additionally, different dating methods are often cross-validated to increase accuracy and reliability.

Read, science is a self-correcting process that seeks to explore and understand the natural world based on empirical evidence. Scientific conclusions are based on evidence, rigorous experimentation, and peer review, which helps identify and correct any errors or biases. While individual scientists may have personal biases, the scientific community as a whole strives to eliminate biases and improve the understanding of the world through consensus-building and critical thinking.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

20 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's one thing to have to deal with the ignorance of simpletons, but it's quite another to have to contend with the indoctrinated empty minds of the otherwise intelligent. The average fifth grader would run circles around them. The title of this thread seems rather sophisticated for someone who otherwise fits the above description, doesn't it?

The science understanding for this thread is about a 6th grade education; I concur starting threads or countering scientific facts should include the knowledge (facts) to carry their part in the discussion. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

The 4004 BC crap the SDAs and other Fundies believe came about from an Irish Bishop named James Ussher in the 1600s. The biggest problem with it is it doesn't take the Jewish Calendar into consideration. 

Thank you I was wondering where this nonsense was coming from.

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

So where are the fossilised human bones? You know, of all the people drowned in the Noahidic flood (or destroyed in one of the dozens of previous “God wiped them all out” events mentioned in the Torah)?

Vast majority of fossils found (95% or so) are marine shell/coral organisms. The small amount of human skeletal fossils are rare and never really complete (only pieces of body parts.)

 

[+Hammerclaw]

11 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

The science understanding for this thread is about a 6th grade education; I concur starting threads or countering scientific facts should include the knowledge (facts) to carry their part in the discussion. 

Yes, but the man behind the curtain seems to so relish playing the part! 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Hammerclaw

[+Hammerclaw]

11 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Vast majority of fossils found (95% or so) are marine shell/coral organisms. The small amount of human skeletal fossils are rare and never really complete (only pieces of body parts.)

 

How interesting you and a certain other poster arrive precisely the same time.

[+Sherapy]

9 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Vast majority of fossils found (95% or so) are marine shell/coral organisms. The small amount of human skeletal fossils are rare and never really complete (only pieces of body parts.)

 

An add to: 

Read, the majority of fossils indeed are marine shell/coral organisms, yet, it is still important to acknowledge that the fossil record encompasses a diverse range of organisms from various ecosystems, including plants, insects, reptiles, mammals, and more. Additionally, while complete human skeletal fossils might be less common, the discoveries of early human ancestors and other hominin species have significantly contributed to our understanding of human evolution. And, it is also true that finds of complete human skeletal fossils are relatively rare, and only fragments or isolated body parts have been discovered. This can be attributed to a variety of factors, including the burial practices of ancient humans, geological processes, and the relatively recent appearance of the Homo genus in the evolutionary timeline.

 

 

 

[eight bits]

Ussher was Church of Ireland (that is, Protestant). I am not sure how much that matters to SDA, but ...

On the time required to form fossils (definitely not my specialty, but inspired by @Ajay0 to channel my unconscious cache of forgotten factoids), what about petrified wood? My vague recollection is that petrification typically takes a very long time, far more than 6000 years. This article seems to agree, 100,000's to 1,000,000's of years:

https://www.livescience.com/32316-how-long-does-it-take-to-make-petrified-wood.html

Am I being led astray?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

21 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Vast majority of fossils found (95% or so) are marine shell/coral organisms. The small amount of human skeletal fossils are rare and never really complete (only pieces of body parts.)

 

How does that rebut my question? 

[+Hammerclaw]

6 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Ussher was Church of Ireland (that is, Protestant). I am not sure how much that matters to SDA, but ...

On the time required to form fossils (definitely not my specialty, but inspired by @Ajay0 to channel my unconscious cache of forgotten factoids), what about petrified wood? My vague recollection is that petrification typically takes a very long time, far more than 6000 years. This article seems to agree, 100,000's to 1,000,000's of years:

https://www.livescience.com/32316-how-long-does-it-take-to-make-petrified-wood.html

Am I being led astray?

A fossil is just the preserved remains or imprint of an animal or plant from a past geological age. Anything from a 10,000-year-old mammoth tusk to a sixty-six million year old T-Rex skull is a fossil.

[+Hammerclaw]

11 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

How does that rebut my question? 

He's pretending to not understand what he very well does understand. Being convincingly deceptive was a part of his trade. War can be very cold.

[+Sherapy]

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

He's pretending to not understand what he very well does understand. Being convincingly deceptive was a part of his trade. War can be very cold.

Sounds like a lot of cherry picked creationism to me. 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Sounds like a lot of cherry picked creationism to me. 

It's supposed to. The art of counterintelligence may require one fabricate a convincing alternate persona from scratch. I think someone was bored with picture books.

[+Hammerclaw]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[eight bits]

27 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

A fossil is just the preserved remains or imprint of an animal or plant from a past geological age. Anything from a 10,000-year-old mammoth tusk to a sixty-six million year old T-Rex skull is a fossil.

Yes I remember that much from the comic crusade against Christians against Dinosuars (good times).

It just seemed interesting (to me) when the thread turned briefly to pursue the question "how long did it take to get that way?" as opposed to how old the item is. OK, how long does it take? (Cue Jeopardy music.)

No doubt there is a profound reason why petrified wood popped into my head as possibly being a leisurely typical-length-of-process example to contrast with a 6000 year time frame.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, eight bits said:

Yes I remember that much from the comic crusade against Christians against Dinosuars (good times).

It just seemed interesting (to me) when the thread turned briefly to pursue the question "how long did it take to get that way?" as opposed to how old the item is. OK, how long does it take? (Cue Jeopardy music.)

No doubt there is a profound reason why petrified wood popped into my head as possibly being a leisurely typical-length-of-process example to contrast with a 6000 year time frame.

I don't think things with Read are quite what we are supposed to believe. I've always sensed a level of disingenuousness about him and I'm pretty sure I know why, now. 

[SHaYap]

This is already being touted as the carpenter came first... 

Quote

Live Science

https://www.livescience.com › archa...

Archaeologists in Zambia discover oldest wooden structure in the ...

 

5 days ago — Archaeologists unearthed the logs at Kalambo Falls, on Lake Tanganyika in northern Zambia, a site that has been investigated by...

 

....

 

 

Smithsonian Magazine

https://www.smithsonianmag.com › ...

Archaeologists Uncover Notched Logs That May Be the Oldest ...

 

3 days ago — Archaeologists have uncovered evidence of the oldest wooden structure on record: a pair of interlocking logs connected by a notch that...

~

 

[Alchopwn]

I think a lot of the discussion here has been circling the plughole of MEANING for a while without really addressing what Meaning is.

Most people who say "meaning" mean "purpose".  Are we really reduced to asking "what does meaning mean?"?

Synonyms include: Connotation, Signification, Implication, Denotation, Aim, import, purport, among others.

Wittgenstein made a rather succinct observation however, which is that "Meaning is USE" (and we are back to purpose).

What Linguistics can bring to this discussion is very pertinent in my opinion, and that is the idea of CONTEXT.

Meaning is not an isolate.  Meaning is a symbolic relationship, as it is only obtained via its relationship to other symbols i.e. its Context.

A sentence is a series of discrete symbolic meanings that take on a greater meaning due to their syntactic relationship.

At one level all words are simply sounds we make and collections of symbols we draw, but they encode a series of meanings that due to Context take on a greater meaning.

Thus the meaning of life depends upon the context of that life.  We can say that "life is as life does" in that it replicates itself and evolves, but this is interesting, because within its context, not many things in nature "fall together" the way life does.  Life is one of the few things in the universe that subverts Entropy.  I like to think that subverting Entropy is the meaning of life.